





^.. <^^ ^4 



A 









kV-' 



•- <^,- 



.#• 









J^' . 





\>^o:> 




o^ 








,\V -p- 




S" -J^- 




^ '>>■ 


^'''^^/\ 




^A V^'^ 


1 J 




TV ^ 


\^°... 












"oo^ 




1^ -^^ 





\' >). ■• " " / 



/• .<\^^ 



.S" 



a 0^ 



.^^^ 



-V 


















'o. % 



..VN^^' 



'^ Y 



. '^ cP 






9 I 






,x> .^; 



^^' 



S^-^. 



•x^ 












.^^ .d-^ 






\\ „ » I « 








, ^/- 


^^ 




'' C' 




' -^^ 












\ 


'o » 








-^ 






.■ 






a 


.^" 


'•^^ ^ 


" 



-o '■ 



KvN^' 






























-2' o 

q^ * :. NO- \V 


















vV 






<-' 









V 



» <• 



x^ 



.o^x. 









xO°x. 









r. 



■X^ 






v « * "-^o 



0^' 



0«' »^ 



,% 






>0^ 


















v^^ 









-x^^ 









>' V 






xO^x 



^^' 






%.'*■' 



■X^ 



% 4 



"^. 









.-^ . 



"on" \ V 



N^' S 

- ^c^. 









. "^^ 



\"'' 



\ .^ S- ^ ' " ' > 



THE 



.%s® ^m% 



>9 



FISHERIES AND THE MISSISSIPPI. 



DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TRANSACTIOMS 



THE NEGOTIATION OF GHENT. 



Collected and Published 



BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 

ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE UNITED STATFP 
AT THAT NF.GOTIATIO!Sr. 



\> 



<'^ 



I- 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY DAVIS AND FORCE, (pRANKLIN's HEAD,") 
VF.NXSYLVANIA AVENUE, 



1822. 






AID VMRTISEMEJVT. 



To facilitate the comparison between the Original arid Dupli* 
cate of Mr. RusseWs Letter of 11th February, yfil ^^ Mr, 
Monroe^ they are in this Collection printed in corresponding 
pages, with the variations between them numbered and printed 
in a brevitr type. The passages in the Ghent Documents, par- 
ticularly referred to in the subsequent discussion^ are enclosed 
in brackets. 



n 



INTRODUCTION. 



During the progress, and after the conclusion, of the negotiation 
at Ghent, despatches were at three several periods received by the 
executive government of the United States, from their plenipoten- 
tiaries at that place. The documents relating to the negotiation, 
transmitted by the first and second of these occasions, were commu- 
nicated by messages from the President of the United States to Con- 
gress, and thereby became generally known to the public. They 
are to be found in the 9th volume of Wait's State Papers, and in the 
7th volume of Niles' Register, and they contain the correspondence 
of the American mission, as well with their own government as 
with the British plenipotentiaries, from the commencement of the 
negotiation till the 31st of October, 1814. The third messenger 
brought the treaty of peace itself The correspondence subsequent 
to the 31st of October, was of course communicated to the Senate 
with the treaty, when it was submitted to that body for their advice 
and consent to its ratification. But it was not communicated to 
Congress or made public, nor was there at that time manifested 
any desire to see it either by the House of Representatives or by 
the nation. 

In the course of the last summer, (of 1821,) I was apprised by a 
friend, that rumours very unfavourable to my reputation, even for 
integrity, were industriously circulated in the Western Country. 
That it was said I had made a proposition at Ghent to grant to the 
British the right to navigate the Mississippi in return for the New- 
foundland fisheries, and that this was represented as, at least, a high 
misdemeanor. I observed that a proposition to confirm both these 
rights as they had stood before the war, and as stipulated by the 
treaty of 1783, had been offered to the British plenipotentiaries, 
not by me, but by the whole American mission, every one ol' 



whom had subscribed to it. That the proposal to make this of- 
fer had been made to the mission not by me, but by a citizen of 
the Western Country : that it was warranted, and as I believed, ab- 
solutely required by the instructions to the mission at the time 
when the proposal was made to the British commissioners, and that 
if I had felt and shown great solicitude at Ghent for the fisheries, 
I did not expect it was to be imputed to me as an offence, ei- 
ther in my character of a servant of the Union, or in that of a na- 
tive citizen of Massachusetts. He said the proposal was at all 
events to be so represented, that it was charged exclusively upon 
me, and that I should hear more about it ere long. 

On the 16th of January last, Mr. Floyd, a member of the House 
of Representatives of the United States, submitted to the House a 
resolution in the following words : 

*' Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to 
be laid before this House, all the correspondence which led to the treaty of 
Ghent, which has not yet been made public, and wliich, in his opinion, it may 
not be improper to disclose." 

The said resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table 
one day. 

The proceedings of the House upon it the next day, are thus re- 
ported in the National Intelligencer of the 18th of January. 

Thursday, January I7th, 1822. 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

On motion of Mr. Floyd, the House proceeded to the considera- 
tion of the resolution offered by him yesterday, requesting of the 
President of the United States " all the correspondence which led 
to the treaty of Ghent, which has not yet been made public, and 
Tsohich, ill his opinion, it may not be improper to disclose.^^ 

Mr. Floyd remarked that, as peace was now restored, there was 
no reason why the whole of the correspondence which led to the 
treaty of peace, should not be made public. He therefore modi- 
fied his motion by striking out the excepting clause, in italic, and 
inserting after the word "Ghent," the words, ''together with the 
protocol." He would also observe, that the bill which he had this 
day reported to the House, contemplated a very considerable 
change in our intercourse with the Indian tribes in the West, and 
it appeared, by the report of the Secretary of War, made yester- 
day, that a great influence was. exercised over those tribes by our 
European neighbours in that quarter. The correspondence be- 
tween the commissioners at Ghent embraced this subject, among 
others, and he thought it was desirable that the House should be 
in possession of the whole of it. 



Mr. Lowndes presumed the House would have no objection to 
obtaining the information alluded to, if it were proper to make it 
public ; but he thought it would be proper to leave the President, 
in the form of the request, the option of communicating such of 
the correspondence only as he might deem it not improper to dis- 
close. This was the usual form adopted by the House, and, al- 
though peace had taken place, there might be some parts of the 
correspondence vvhich it would be improper to publish. An un- 
limited call for all the information in the possession of the govern- 
ment on the subject, might create some embarrassment, and he 
hoped the mover of the resolution would restore it to its original 
shape. 

Mr. Floyd was unwilling, by any act of his, to embarrass the 
executive ; but presumed there was nothing asked for in this reso- 
lution which would have that effect, and feeling anxious to obtain 
all the information on his subject which could be furnished, he pre- 
ferred the motion in its present form. If the motion would reach 
any state secret — admitting there ought to be any state secrets in 
this government — he wished not to be instrumental in disturbing 
it ; but he anticipated no such consequence. 

Mr. Lowndes rejoined, in substance, that although five or six 
years had elapsed since the restoi'ation of peace, it did not follow 
that all that passed in the negotiations was proper for publication. 
Some parts of the correspondence it might be incompatible with 
the public interest to disclose to the world ; at any rate it was pro- 
per to except such as the President might deem the public good 
required him to withhold. Mr. L. therefore moved to amend the 
resolution by restoring the words, *' and which, in his opinion, it 
■may not be improper to disclose.'^ 

Mr. Floyd thought there was, in reality, no difference between 
himself and the gentleman from South Carolina. If the gentleman 
was apprised of any thing vvhich it was improper to communicate 
to the House, to be sure that would be a difi'erent matter ; but if 
his remarks were general, and had I'eference to no particular facts 
in the correspondence, there was no reason for the amendment. 

The question being taken, the amendment was agreed to ; and 

Thus amended, the resolution was adopted, and a committee of 
two appointed to carry it to the President. 

On this debate it was observable that the mover of the resolu- 
tion had struck out the usual exception, which had been in his 
draft of it presented the day before, of such papers as in the Pre- 
sident's opinion, it might be improper to disclose ; and had added 
the words " together with the protocol, ^^ which had not been in the 
original resolution. The words of exception were restored, after 
debate upon the motion of Mr. Lowndes. The inferences natu- 
rally drawn from these circumstances were, that in the day's inter- 



val between the offering of the resolution, and the debate upon it, 
Buggestions had been made to the mover, that there might be mo- 
tives operating upon the executive, for withholding precisely the 
information that was desired, unless the whole should be demand- 
ed ; and that a request for the correspondence would be liable to 
fail in drawing forth the momentous disclosure, unless the protocol 
should also be required. This special reference to the protocol, 
would more readily occur to a person who had been concerned in 
the negotiation, than to others, and the debate indicated at once 
some eagerness to obtain very complete information, some appre- 
hensions that pains would be taken to suppress it, and some im- 
pression, that the evidence of the material fact to be elicited was 
lodged in the protocol.* 

It was in the protocol of the conference of 1st December, 1814, 
that the proposal made to the British plenipotentiaries relating to 
the Mississippi and the fisheries was contained. But all the Ame- 
rican plenipotentiaries had been present at that conference, and on 
the face of the protocol it appeared that the proposal had been 
made by them as a joint act of all. There was a subsequent letter 
from them of 14th December, 1814, to the British plenipotentia- 
ries, signed by all, and referring to it as an article to which they had 
no objection, considering it as merely declaratory. There was nothing 
in the documents showing at whose instance in the American mis- 
sion, the proposal had been offered ; but in the joint letter of the 
mission to the'Secretary of State of 25th December, 1814, it was 
stated that a majority of the mission had determined to offer it, and 
in a separate letter of the same date, Mr. Russell noticing this pas- 
sage of the joint letter, acknowledged, in candour, that he had been 
on that occasion in the minority ; and reserved to himself there- 
after, the power of assigning his reasons to vindicate his motives.. 
It will be seen in the course of the following papers, that the indi- 
cation in the joint letter, that the offer had been made, upon a de- 
termination of a majority, had, by an alteration of the original draft 
been inserted, through the agency of Mr Russell, not (as he stated) 
at his own desire, but at that of Mr. Clay. But neither Mr. Clay, 
nor any other member of the mission, save Mr. Russell, had 
thought it necessary at the time to inform the government how be 

* See in the Appendix, Mr. Floyd's Letter, published in the Richmond En- 
quirer of 27th August, 1822, and the remarks upon it. 



had voted on the question, or to vindicate his motives for his vote.. 
When the documents called for by the resolution of the Houst: 
of 17th January, 1822, were on the 23d of February communicated 
by the message from the President, they did indeed show that this 
portentous proposal had been made ; but that it was by the concur- 
rent act of all the American plenipotentiaries. They also showed 
that upon the expediency of making the proposal, there had pre- 
viously been taken a vote, on which occasion Mr. Russell had been 
in the minority. The documents were, by order of the HousCj, 
laid upon the table, and there reposed for the space of nearly twc* 
months till the 18th of April. 

In the mean time the correspondence from Washington, and the 
newspapers indoctrinated by it, had not been equally inactive. 
Through these channels, the public were assured that the proposal 
of otTering the navigation of the Mississippi for the fisheries, had 
been made by me ; that Mr. Clay had uniformly declared that he 
would not sign the treaty, with such an article in it; and that the 
proposal had been finally set aside, by Mr. Bayard's having chang- 
ed his mind, and come over to the opinion of the minority. Not one 
of these three statements was true, though Mr. Russell has since 
positively asserted the second, and gone still further than the 
thii'd, by alleging that the proposal was actually made by a minori- 
ty of the mission, against the will of Mr. Bayard, and without giv- 
ing him notice after he had changed his mind. 

None of these allegations could derive any countenance from the 
documents communicated to the House, under their resolution of 
the 17th of January. But Mr. Russell's letter from Paris was in 
reserve. The following papers will show how it was finally brought 
before the House, together with a new edition of it in the form of 
a duplicate ; and how a third exemplar, varying from both, was 
presented to the public, in the National Gazette at Philadelphia. 
The duplicate was the first of these papers seen by me, and from 
the moment of my perusing it, I could be no longer at a loss, for the 
origin of the storm, which a friendly voice had warned me was to 
burst upon me from the West. The letter was a tale wrought up 
with the ingenuity of a novelist, representing the proposition made 
to the British plenipotentiaries on the 1st of December, 1814, as 
a deliberate and wanton sacrifice of the peace and security of the 
whole Westera and Southern section of the Union, for the doubtful 



accommoclation of a few Eastern fishermen, armualiy decieasuig nx- 
number, entirely exempt from the danger, and unsupported by any 
claim of right. To take away all excuse from this procedui:e, it 
was represented as having been pursued by the majority, in wilful 
and express violation of the instructions to the mission, as under- 
stood by themselves, and in defiance of the remonstrances of the mi- 
nority; Mr. Russell represented himself as having inflexibly opposed 
it to the last, and ihe whole purport of the letter tended to the im- 
pression that he had, in the deliberations of the mission at Ghent, 
opposed the measure by urging against it all the reasons which 
were set forth in the letter itself. There was withal, a profession 
of unfeigned respect for the integrity, talents, and judgment of the 
majority, thus represented as having grossly violated their own sense 
of their duties, and been prepared to lay open to British smuggler? 
and emissaries, and to all the horrors of Indian warfare, the unof- 
fending citizens of the largest portion of the Union. 

No one member of the majority was specially named in Mr. 
Russell's letter, as peculiarly responsible for the obnoxious propo- 
sal, but the joint letter of the mission to the Secretary of State, of 
25th December, 1814, had been drawn up by me. Mr. Russell, 
who had signed it without discussion, and without proposing any 
alteration to it, excepting those noticed in these papers, had, asap« 
peared by this duplicate, taken it as the text for an adverse com- 
mentary. The joint letter, written the day after the signature of 
the treaty, to be despatched with it, had given to the Secretary of 
State, a concise and summary narrative of the proceedings of the 
mission since the 31st of October, 1814, the date of their last pre- 
ceding despatch. In this narrative were mentioned the circum- 
stances under which the proposal to the British plenipotentiaries 
of 1st December, 1814, had been made ; the reasoning by which 
it had been discussed with them, the counter-proposition which they 
had offered as a substitute for it, and their final acceptance, in its 
stead, of the alternative which we had offered with it, of omitting 
altogether the article by which they would have abandoned their 
claim to the boundary line to the Mississippi. It was to the rea- 
soning interwoven with this narrative, reasoning which had been 
used by the American mission in debate with the British plenipo- 
tentiaries, and as adversaries in argument to them, that I found Mr. 
Russell's duplicate was a deeply -studied, counter-argument. He had 



Undertaken, after the conclusion of the treaty, to do that for the 
enemy which they had not done for themselves ; but the glaring 
fallacy of his letter was, that it represented that which had been 
urged on our part in discussion with them, as if it had been a sub- 
ject of debate among ourselves. It undertook to prove, that the 
principles which we had asserted, and the arguments we had urged 
to the British commissioners, in support of our fishing liberties, 
contested by them, were entirely without foundation ; that we had 
no right to the tishing liberties, and no right even to advance a claim 
to them ; and that these had been among his reasons for refusing 

his consent to the proposal of a stipulation for securing them. The 
duplicate, 

" Tam ficti, pravique tenax, quam nuncia veii," 

blended with these misrepresentations, the objections which Mr, 
Clay had made, not only against the proposal which was offered, 
but against an article which never had been offered, and alleged as 
capping the climax of all Mr. Russell's reasons against the propo- 
sals, that it was in express violation of instructions which had been 
cancelled before the proposal was made. 

Heterogeneous and incongruous as were these materials, they 
had obviously been mixed up with the design of exciting the re- 
sentment and indignation of the Western and Southern sections of 
the Union against the offer made to the British plenipotentiaries, 
and against those by whom it had been proposed. When the orir 
ginal letter from Paris was found, a comparison of it with the du- 
plicate disclosed this design in still broader light. All the new pa- 
ragraphs had a direct tendency either to aggravate the criminality 
and injustice of the majority, or to make special claims for the 
writer to Western favour and gratitude, or to deprecate by flattering 
compliments the resentments of the Eastern fishing interest. To 
any person unacquainted with the real transactions at the negotia- 
tion of Ghent, the composition was mingled with so much address 
and plausibility, that it was eminently calculated to produce its ef- 
fect. It was difficult to suppose that the Ghent documents, and this 
letter in particular, had been called forth from their slumbers of 
seven years for any other purpose. 

There were circumstances of a peculiar nature, imposing upon 
me the obligation of meeting this accusation at once, and in the 
most explicit manner. The documents called for by the House in 



10 

their first resolution of 17th January, were to be lurnished from the 
Department of State ; and some mistrust had been discovered, that 
there would be a disposition there to withhold some of them. The 
second call, was for a paper known not to be forth-coming from 
thence, until it should be furnished by Mr. Russell himself; for 
which he had taken care to be prepared. Mr Russell, too, by ob- 
serving, when he delivered it at the Department, that he was in- 
different whether it should be communicated or not, but if not, that 
he wished it might be returned to him, evidently disclosed a suppo- 
sition on his part, that I should feel reluctant at the communication 
of it to the House — that I should shrink from the exhibition of its 
contents to the world. My official duty was to report it to the Pre- 
sident for communication to the House, and if precluded from the 
privilege of remarking upon it, 1 should have been reduced to the 
singular predicament of being made the silent reporter of my own 
condemnation. A deceased, and an absent colleague, were impli- 
cated in the charges of the letter, apparently as much as myself. 
Could I in justice to myself, I could not in duty to them, be the 
bearer of these imputations to the Legislative Assembly of the na- 
tion, without declaring them to be unfounded. I did, therefore, in 
reporting the paper to the President, request that in the communi- 
cation of it to the House, it might be accompanied by my Remarks. 
The following pages will show the sequel. 

In the collection of these papers, however, the defence and jus- 
tification of myself and my colleagues of the majority, forms but a 
secondary purpose. Its primary intention is to prove — 

1. That the principle assumed by the American mission at 
Ghent, at the proposal of Mr. Clay, and in a paragraph drawn 
up by him that the rights and liberties of the people of the 
United States in the North American fisheries, were not abro- 
gated by the war of 1812, was a just and sound principle, en- 
tirely conformable to the law of nations. 

2. That the article first offered by Mr. Gallatin, which was not 
proposed to the British plenipotentiaries, and the amendment 
to the 8th article of the project, also offered by Mr. Gallatin, 
which was actually proposed to the British plenipotentiaries, 
and by them rejected, was only a declaratory recognition of 
that same principle, applied to the British right of navigating 
the Mississiy,pi, as well as to our fishery rights and liberties. 



u 

3. That, considered even on the narrow ground of conflicting 
sectional interests, this article and amendment proposed to 
place the East and the West in the same state as before the 
war ; without gain to one or loss to the other. 

4. That the objection, by the minority, against the article and 
amendment, insisted, in principle, upon the sacrifice of aa 
Eastern for the benefit of a Western interest. 

5. That the Eastern interest to be sacrificed, was of very great 
importance to the Union, and of vital magnitude to the State 
of Massachusetts ; while the Western interest, for which it 
was to be immolated, was altogether speculative and imagina- 
ry. It was most truly denominated, by the member of the 
mission now no more, bragging a million against a cent. 

If, therefore, the letter of Mr. Russell, of 1 1th February, 1815, 
from Paris, had been the real exposition of the motives of the mi- 
nority, for objecting to the proposed article and amendment of Mr. 
Gallatin, its whole foundation, both of law and of fact, failing, would 
have left the minority without any justification for their votes what- 
soever. With regard to the comparative value of the two interests 
in question, it was impossible for the minority with more sincere 
and deep conviction to believe the views of the majority to be er- 
roneous, than the majority thought those of the minority to be so. 
But it never entered into my head, and never could have entered 
into my heart, to treasure up these errors of opinion for after-use 
against a colleague of the mission ; to " set in a note-book, con, and 
learn by rote," opinions expressed in the mutual confidence of as- 
sociates in a great national trust, in order to bring them forth, after 
many years, as engines to ruin a rival reputation. I 

But the letter from Paris was no exposition of the opinions which 
had been manifested by the minority at Ghent. The principle, 
that the fishing liberties had not been abrogated by the war, had 
been asserted by the mission at Ghent, on the proposal of Mr. Clay, 
The refutation of it is the most heavily laboured part of the letter 
from Paris. If individual opinions upon the expediency of particu- 
lar measures adopted by the mission, are to be made the test of 
merit or demerit for individual members of the mission, it is not a 
little whimsical that Mr. Russell, for the minority, should now dis- 
claim the principle adopted at the motion of one of them, and which 
has been completely successful in maintaining the interest in de- 



12 

fence of which it was advanced, aed pin all their claims of superior 
service upon their ineffectual opposition to a proposal which they 
did actifally concur in making, and which failed, not in consequence 
of their objections, but because the enemy disdained to accept it. 
If by the sturdiness of their adherence to their opinions, they had 
prevented the proposal from being made, there might have been 
some semblance of a claim to credit from those who tremble at the 
sight of an Englishman afloat upon the Mississippi. If the enemy 
had eagerly snatched at the offer, and British emissaries, British 
smugglers, and Indian wars, had swarmed upon us, in consequence, 
the minority might have had some apology, for disengaging their re- 
sponsibility to the act, and casting upon their colleagues of the ma- 
jority all its evil report. But so far as the proposal could possibly 
have operated mischief, they are answerable for it by their con- 
currence. So far as the immediate rejection of the proposal by a 
clear-sighted enemy, can test its possible consequences, the event 
affords as little cause for the minority to glory in their foresight, as 
their assent to what they thought so pernicious, gives them reason 
to be proud of their firmness. A loud call upon the nation to dis- 
criminate between the profound wisdom and comprehensive pa- 
triotism of the minority, and the dulness, absurdity, and contracted 
spirit, or treachery, of the majority, could scarcely rest on weaker 
o-pounds, than upon the aversion of the minority to principles which 
they nevertheless did sanction ; and upon their arguments against 
measures to which they did subscribe their names. The majority 
have asked for no discrimination. As one of them, I have as little 
desire to conceal, as to proclaim, my separate agency in the transac- 
tions of the mission, or my vote upon any measure discussed by 
them. I ask, only, not to be misrepresented. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

21st September, 1822. 



ORRESPONDENCE WHICH LED TO THE TREATY OF 
GHENT. 



Extract from the Journal of Che House of Represenlalives of the Untied Statss. 
JAN'UART 16, 1822. 

Mr. Fl^yd submitted the following resolution, viz : 

Rcnolved, That the President of the United States bo requested to cause to 
he laid before this House, all the correspondence which led to the Treaty ol 
Ghent, which has not yet been inu.de public, and which, in his opinion, it may 
not be improper to disclose. 

The said resolution was read and ordered to lie on tlie table one day. 

January 17, 1822. 

On motion of Mr. Floyd, 

The House proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by himyesterday, 
and ttie same being again read, and modified to read as follows : 

Resolved, That the President of tlie United States be requested to cause to 
fee laid belbro this House, all the correspondence which led to the Treaty cf 
Ghent, toi^ettier with the Protocol, which has not yet been made public. 

Mr. Lowndes moved to amend the same, by subjoining the following, viz : 
"And which, in his opinion, it may not be improper to disclose.'' 

And the (juuslicii being taken thereon, it passed in the alfiimative. 

The said resolution, inndWied and amended as aforesaid, was then agreed to 
by the House; and Mi. Floyd and Mr. Walworth were appointed a committee 
to present the same to the President of the United States. 



To the House of Representatives of the United States: 

I transmit to the House of Representatives, a Report from the 
Secretary of State, with the Documents accompanying it, in pur- 
suance of a resolution of the House of the 17th of January hist. 

JAMES MONROE. 

Washington, 21st February, 1822. 



Department of State, 

Washington, 21st Feb. 1822. 

The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the resolu- 
tion of the House of Representatives of the 17th January, request- 
ing the President of the United States to cause to be laid before the 
House all the correspondence which led to the Treaty of Ghent, 
together with the Protocol, which has not been made public, antl 
which, in his opinion, it may not be improper to disclose, has the 
honour to submit to the President the papers embraced by that 
resolution. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

The President of the United Btates. 
2 



14 

CORRESPONDENCE, &c. 



.Imerican jVote JVo. 6. in ansxi:cr to Bi-ilish A''o(e JVo, 6. 

Ghent, November 10, 1814. 

7'ie undersigned have the honour to acknowledge the receipt 

1 e note addressed to them by l]is Britannic Majesty's Klenipo- 

iries, on the 31st ultimo. 

■ 16 undersigned had considered an interchange of the project 

reaty as the course best calculated to exclude useless and de- 

-y discussion, to cobfine the attention of both parties to the 

se object to be adjusted between the two nations, and to has- 

v i,ie conclusion of the peace so desirable to both. Finding, in 

ihn note of the British plenipotentiaries of the [21st] ultimo, a mere 

r'ifbrence to the points proposed by them in the first conference, 

v/ith the ofi'er of assuming the basis of ^iti possidetis, on which the 

' .'. !t rsigned had in substance already declined to treat ; they did 

:, . onsider it as the project of a treaty presented in compliance 

\vvAi their request. They proposed, in their note of the 24th ulti- 

>no. that the exchange of the two projects should be made at the 

S'iine time. And it is not without some surprise, that the under- 

sgtjod observe, in the note to which they now have the honour of 

':eii; ing, that the British plenipotentiaries consider their note as 

»:u;^' .ining the project of a treaty, to which the undersigned are 

1kup[«osed to be pledged to return a counter-project. 

'■'-elievingthat where both parties are sincerely desirous of bring- 

., negotiation to a happy termination, the advantage of giving 

^ receiving the first draft is not of a magnitude to be made a 

•■>f controversy, and convinced that their government is too 

.y desirous of that auspicious result to approve of its being 

dd for a moment upon any question of etiquette, the under- 

-;d have the honour to enclose herewith the project of a treaty, 

.. 'mpanied with some observations upon several of the articles, 

;vhich may more fully elucidate their object in proposing them. 

The British plenipotentiaries stated, in their last note, that 
they had no other propositions to offer, nor other demands to make, 
than those contained in their note of the 21st ultimo, which, with 
the reference to their former declaration respecting the fisheries, 
contains only two propositions, viz : that of fixing the boundary 
from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi ; and that of adopt- 
ing, with respect to the other boundaries, the basis of uti possidetis. 
*[In answer to the declaration made by the British plenipoten- 
tiaries respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, referring to what: 
passed in the conference of the 9th August, can only state that they 
are not authorized to bring into discussion any of the rights or li- 
berties which the United States have heretofore enjoyed iu relation 

tiParagraph drawn liy Mr. Clay, and inscvted at bis proposal. 



15 

thereto. From their nature, and from the peculiar character oi' 
the treaty of 1783, by which they were recognised, no further 
stipulation has been deemed necessary by the government of the 
United States, to entitle them to the full enjoyment of all of them.] 

The undersigned have aready, in their last note, explicitly de- 
clined treating on the basis of uti possidetis. They cannot agree 
to any other principle than that of mutual restoration of territory, 
and have accordingly prepared an article founded on that basis. 
They are wiUing even to extend the same principle to the other 
objects in dispute between the two nations ; and in proposing alf 
the other articles included in this project, they wish to be distinctl', 
understood, that they are ready to sign a treaty, placing the tw ; 
countries, in respect to all the subjects of difference between the :.;. 
in the same state they were in at the commencement of the pre? ••,; 
war,; reserving to each party all its rights, and leaving what' 
may remain of controversy between them, for future and p i 
negotiation. 

The British plenipotentiaries having, in their note of the 
September, communicated the disposition of their governr .>. 
receive favourably a proposition which should acknowh ., 
boundary from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, 
cuss any other line of boundary which might be submitteo t toa- 
sideration, the undersigned answered, that as soon as the \ ..p^6i- 
tion of Indian boundary should be disposed of, they would have no 
objection, with the explanation given by the British pleni!'>'ertis' 
ries, to discuss the subject. 

The government of the United States had, prior to ibf - .(i 
tion of Louisiana, been disposed to agree to the boundary . frtvn ,,,.. 
Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, from a wish not > ••; t ' 
range that subject, but also to settle, m a definitive n 
diiferences respecting the boundary and islands in the 
samaquoddy : and its assent to the proposed stipula 
boundary was refused on account of the acquisition ' 
the boundaries of which might have been affected by '' 

dersigned cannot agree to fix the boundaries inghat qu.utt^ ules. 
that of Louisiana be also provided for in the ar -gement. They 
accordingly submit for consideration the article on that subject 
which appears to have been agreed on between the British and 
American commissioners in the project of convention of the year 
1 807. 

In respect to the intended review of the other boundaries be- 
tween the British and American territories, with the view to pre- 
vent future uncertainty and dispute, the undersigned propose the 
reference of the whole subject to commissioners : and they pre- 
sent accordingly five articles, drawn on the principles formerly 
adopted by the two powers for settling the question respecting the 
river St. Croix. 

The article already agreed on, respecting the Indian pacification, 
is included in the project of the undersigned. In conformity with 



16 

their former suggestion, they offer another, intended to restrain the 
hostihties, and to prevent the employment, of the savages in war, 
and one reciprocally granting a general amnesty. 

i'he only other subjects which have been presented by the un- 
dersigned as suitable for discussion, were those respecting seamen, 
blockade, and indemnities. 

Keeping in view the declaration made by lord Castlercagh, in 
his note of the 29th of August, 1812, to Mr- Russell, and in his let- 
ter of the 4th November, 1013, to Mr. Monroe, the undersigned 
propose only a temporary article, intended, without affecting thf> 
rights or pretensions of either country, to attempt to accomplish, 
by means less liable to vexation, the object for which impressment 
has hitherto been thought necessary by Great Britain. 'I'he pro- 
posed agreement being purely conditional, and limited in duration, 
each party will be bound only so far, and so long, as the other shall 
fulfil its conditions ; and at the end of the term fixed for the dura- 
tion of the article, or whenever either party may tail to perform 
his engagement, the rights of both will be as valid and entire as 
hey were before the agreement. 

■ The article respecting blockades is believed to be in p'^rfect con- 
formity with the principles of the law of nations, as acknowledged 
by both nations. The detinition is borrowed from the treaty of 
18vll, between Great Britain and Russia, and the residue of the 
ar'icle from the unratified treaty of 1806, between Great Britain 
an.l the United States. 

That relating to indemnities, consists of two jiarts : the first for 
irregular seizures, captures, and condemnations of American pro- 
perty, contrary to the established laws and usages of nations, pre- 
vious to the commencement of the war ; and the second for similar 
irregularities committed during the war, and contrary to the known 
and established usages of war, between civilized nations. The 
cases of the first apply exclusively to claims of the citizens of the 
United States, because, the causes of such claims were then con- 
fined, by the relative situation of the parties, to one side. It is pre- 
sumed, that the B#ti*h government will itself be sensible of the 
justice of making indemnity for injuries committed by its officers, 
in violation of principles avowed and recognised by itself; particu- 
larly in the letter from lord Hawkesbury to Mr. King, of 11 tli 
April, 1801, and in that from Mr. Merry to Mr. Madison, of 12th 
April, 1804 ; and that the same justice will be admitted, in cases 
where the territorial jurisdiction of the United States was violated, 
and where the injury was occasioned by the retrospective effects 
of the British Orders in Council, of June, 1803, as to the return 
from the contraband voyages, and of the Orders in Council of Ja- 
nuary 7, 1807. 

With regard to the Orders in Council, of November, 1807, and 
of April, 1809, the undersigned will observe, that these having 
been issued solely on the ground of retaliation against France, and 
their object having altogether ceased, it is just to indemnify the 



17 

citizens of the United States for losses experienced by the effect of 
measures intended to operate against the enemy of Great Britain, 
and which fell almost exclusively on a country, which was no party 
to the war. The United States have never ceased, and at this time 
continue to demand, from France, indemnity for the losses thev 
have experienced by the effect of the decrees of her government, 
in violation of the law of nations. 

The cases of the second part of this article apply equally to 
botli the belligerent parties. They have been, during the war, 
subjects of crimination on both sides. The American government 
can give no stronger and more signal proof of its disapprobation of 
every departure, under colour of its authority, from the established 
usages of legitimate warfare between civilized nations, than by the 
offer of mutual reparation. 

The article fixing a limitation for captures at sea, does not seem 
to require any comment. 

The undersigned present their entire project in this specific 
form, with the full expectation of receiving from the British pleni- 
potentiaries their exphcit answer respecting all the articles embra- 
ced in it, and a project also reduced to specific propositions, and 
embracing all the objects which they intend to bring forward. 

The undersigned renew to the British plenipotentiaries the as- 
surance of their high consideration. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 
J. A. BAYARD, 
HENRY CLAY, 
JONATHAN RUSSELL, 
ALBERT GALLATIN. 

To the Plenipotentiaries of His Britannic 

Majesty, &:c. &c. izc. Ghent. 



Copy of a project of a treaty of peace submitted by the Jlmerican to tht 
British Plenipotentiaries at Ghent, on the 10th day of Kov, It! 14. 

Treaty of Peace and Amity between his Britannic Majesty and the 
United States of America. 

His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America desirous 
of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between the 
two countries, and of restoring, upon principles of perfect recipro- 
city, peace, friendship, and good understanding, between them, have 
for that purpose, appointed their respective plenipotentiaries, that 
is to say : His Britannic Majesty on his part has appointed the right 
honourable James Lord Gambier, admiral of the White Squadron 
of his Majesty's fleet, Henry Goulburn, Esquire, a member of the 
Imperial Parliament and under Secretary of State, and William 
Adams, Esq. Doctor of Civil Tiaws : and the President of the Unit- 



1« 

pa] States, by nnd with (hr advice and consent ot the Senate thereof, 
has appointed John Quincy Adams, Jaraes A. Bayard, Henry Chiy, 
Jonathan Kussell, and Albert Gallatin, citizens of the United States, 
who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective full 
powers, have agreed upon the following articles : 

Article I. There shall be a firm and universal peace between 
his Brifannic Majesty and the United States, and between their 
respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people of every 
degree, without exception of persons or places. All hostilities 
both by sea and land shall immediately cease. All prisoners on both 
sides shall be set at liberty. All territory, places, and possessions, 
without exception, taken by either party from the other during the 
war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall 
be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, or 
carrying away any artillery or other public property, or any slaves 
or other private property ; and all archives, records, deeds, and 
papers, either of a public nature or belonging to private persons, 
which, in the course of the war, may have fallen into the hands of 
the officers of either party, shall be forthwith restored and deliver- 
ed to the proper authorities and persons, to whom they respective- 
ly belong. 

Article It. Immediately after the respective ratifications of 
this treaty, orders shall be sent to the armies, squadrons, officers, 
subjects, and citizens of the two powers, to cease from all hos- 
tilities. And to prevent all causes of complaint which might 
arise on account of the prize? which may be taken at sea after the 
signingof this treaty, it is reciprocally agreed that the vessels and 
effects which may be taken in the Channel and in the North Seas af. 

(er the space of from that of the signature hereof, shall be 

restored on each side : that the term shall be from the Chan- 
nel and the North Seas to the Canary Islands, inclusively, whether 

in the ocean or the Mediterranean : of from the said Canary 

Islands to the equinoctial line or equator, and of in all other 

parts of the world, without excej>tiou. 

Article III. Whereas that portion of the boundary between the 
dominions of his Britannic Majest}' in North America, and those of 
the United States, from the mouth of the river St. Croix, (as the 
said mouth was ascertained by the commissioners appointed for 
that purpose,) to the bay of Fundy, has not yet been regulated and 
determined ; and, whereas, the respective rights and claims of his 
Britannic Majesty and of the United States, to the several islands in 
the bay of Passamaquoddy, and to the island of Grand Menan, have 
never been finally adjusted and determined, the said islands being 
claimed on the part of the United States as lying within twenty 
jea"'ues of their shores, and south of aline drawn due east from the 
mouth of the river St. Croix ; and on the part of his Britannic Ma- 
iestv, ;»s having been, at or befoi'c the former treaty of peace, be- 
tween the two boundaries within the limits of the province of Nova 
Scotia : In order, therefore, fumlly to decide these several ques- 



19 

lions, it is agreed that they shall be referred to three commissioners, 
to be appointed in the following manner, viz : one commissioner 
shall be appointed b}' his Britannic Majesty, and one by the Presi- 
dent of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate thereof, and the said two commissioners, shall have 
power to choose a third ; and if they cannot agree, they shall each 
propose one person, and of the two names so proposed, one shall 
be drawn by lot, in the presence of the two original commissioners, 
and the three commissioners so appointed, shall be sworn impar- 
tially to examine and decide the said questions according to such 
evidence as shall respectively be laid before them, on the part of 
the British government and the United States. The said commis- 

missioners shall meet at and shall have povvei' to adjouru to 

such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said com- 
missioners, or a majority of them, shall, by a declaration under 
their hands and seals, determine the boundary aforesaid, from the 
mouth of the river St. Croix to the bay of Fundy ; and decide to 
which of the two contracting parties the several islands aforesaid 
do respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of -the 
former treaty of peace. And both parties agree to consider such 
decision as final and conclusive. 

Article IV^. Whereas neither that point of the high- lands lying 
due north from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in 
the former treaty of peace between the two powers, as the north- 
west angle of Nova Scotia, nor the northwesternmost head of Con- 
necticut river, has yet been ascertained : And whereas that part of 
the boundary line between the dominions of the two powers, which 
extends from the source of the river St. Croix, directly north, to 
the above mentioned northwest angle of Nova Scotia : thence, along 
the said high lands, which divide those rivers, that empty them- 
selves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the 
Atlantic ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river ; 
thence, down, along the middle of that river, to tlie forty-fifth de- 
gree of north latlitude ; thence, by a line due west, on said latitude, 
until it strikes the river Iroquois, or Cataraguy, has not yet been 
surveyed ; It is agreed, that, for these several purposes, three 
commissioners shall be appointed, sworn, (mutatis mutandis) and 
authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to 
those mentioned in the next preceding article ; the said commis- 
sioners shall meet at , and shall have power to adjourn to 

such other place or places as they shall think tit. The said com- 
missioners, or a majority of them, shall have power to ascertain and 
determine the points above mentioned, in conformity with the provi- 
sions of the said treaty of peace, and shall cause the boundary afore- 
said, from the source of the river St. Croix to the river Iroquois, 
or Cataraguy, to be surveyed and marked according to the said 
provisions. The said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall 
make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration, un- 
der their hands and seals, certifying it to be the true map of the 



20 

said bouoLlaiy, and particularizing the latitude and longitude of the 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia ; of the north westernmost head of 
Connecticut river, and of such other points of the said boundary as 
they may deem proper ; and both parties agree to consider such 
map and declaration as finally and conclusively tixiug the said boun- 
dary. 

Article V. A\ hereas, by the former treaty of peace, that por- 
tion of the boundary of the United States from the point where the 
ibrty-fiith degree of north latittide sl^-ikes the river Iroquois, or 
Cataraguy, to the lake Superior, was declared to be along the mid* 
die of said river, into lake Ontario, through the middle of said lake, 
until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and 
lake Erie ; thence, along the middle of said communication, into 
lake Erie ; through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the 
water communication into the lake Huron ; thence, through the 
middle of said lake, to the water communication between that lake 
and lake Superior : And whereas doubts have arisen what was the 
middle of the said river, lakes, and water communications, and whe- 
ther certain islands lying in the same were within the dominions of 
his Britannic Majesty or of the United States : In order, therefore, 
tinally to decide these questions, they shall be referred to three 
commissioners, to be appointed, sworn, (mutatis mutandis) and au- 
thorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to those 
mentioned in the next preceding articte. The said commissioners, 

shall meet, in the first instance, at , and shall have power to 

adjourn to such other place, or places, as they shall think fit. The 
said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall, by a declaration 
under their hands and seals, designate the boundary through the 
said river, lakes, and water communications, and decide to which of 
the two contracting parties the several islands lying within the said 
rivers, lakes, and watercommunications, do respectively belong, ia 
conformity with the true intent of the former treaty of peace. 
And both parties agree to consider such decision as final and con- 
clusive. 

AuTicLF. VI. It is further agreed, that the said last-mentioned 
commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties assigned 
to them in the preceding article, shall be, and they, or a majority of 
them, are hereby, authorized, upon their oaths, impartially to fix 
and determine, according to the true intent of the said former trea- 
ty of peace, that part of the boundary between the dominions of the 
two powers which extends from the water communication between 
lake Huron and lake Superior, to the most northwestern point of 
the Lake of the Woods ; to decide to which of the two parties the 
several islands lying in the lakes, water communications, and rivers, 
forming the said boundary, do respectively belong, in conformity 
with the true intent of the said former treaty of peace, and to cause 
such parts of the said boundary as require it to be surveyed and 
marked. The said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall, by 
a declaration, under their hands and seals, designate the boundai-v ' 



*2l 

ijibresaid, state their decision on the questions thus referred to 
them, and particularize the hititude and longitude of the most north- 
western point of the Lake of the Woods, and of such other points 
of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both parties 
agree to consider such decision as final and conclusive. 

AnxrcLE VII. The several boards of commissioners mentioned in 
the four preceding articles shall, respectively, have power to ap- 
point a secretary, and to employ such surveyors, or other persons, 
as they shall judge necessary. Duplicates of their respective de- 
clarations and decisions, of the statement of their accounts, and of 
the journal of their proceedings, shall be delivered by them to the 
agents of his Britannic Majesty, and to the agents of the United 
States, who may be respectively appointed, and authorized to man- 
age the business in behalf of their respective governments. The 
said commissioners shall be respectively paid in such manner as shall 
be agreed between the two parties ; such agreement being to be 
settled at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty. 
And alj other expenses attending the said commissions shall be de- 
frayed, jointly, by the two parties, the same being previously as- 
i;ertained and allowed by a majority of the commissioners. And ia 
the case of death, sickness, resignation, or necessary absence, the 
place of every such commissioner, respectively, shall be supplied 
in the same manner as such commissioner was first appointed, and 
the new commissioner shall take the same oath or affirmation, and 
do the same duties. 

It is fui'ther agreed between the two parties, that, in case any of 
the islands mentioned in any of the preceding articles, which were 
in the possession of one of the parties prior to the commencement 
of the present war between the two countries, should, by the de- 
cision of any ot the boards of commissioners aforesaid, fail within 
the dominions of the other party, all grants of lands made previous 
to that time, by the party having had such possession, shall be as 
valid as if such island or islands had, by such decision or decisions, 
been adjudged to be within the dominions of the party having had 
such possession. 

Article VIII. It is agreed that a line, drawn due north or 
south, (as the case may be) from the most northwestern point of 
the Lake of the Woods, until it shall intersect the forty-ninth par- 
allel of north latitude, and from the point of such intersection, due 
west, along and with the said parallel, shall be the dividing line 
between his majesty's territories and those of the United States to 
the westward of the said lake, as far as their said respective ter- 
ritories extend in that quarter ; and that the said line shall, to that 
extent, form the southern boundary of his majesty's said territo- 
ries, and the northern boundary of the said territories of the 
United States : Provided, that nothing in the present article shall 
be construed to extend to the northwest coast of America, or to 
the territories belonging to, or claimed by, either party, on the 
continent of America, to the westward of the Stony Mountains, 



22 

Article IX. The United States of America engage to put an 
end, immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to 
hostiHties with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they 
may be at war at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to 
restore to such tribes or nations, respectively, all the possessions, 
rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been en- 
titled to in 181 1, previous to such hostilities. 

Provided always, that such tribes or nations shall agree to de- 
sist from all hostilities against the United States of America, their 
citizens and subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty 
being notified to such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accord- 

And his Britannic majesty engages on his part, to put an end, 
immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostili- 
ties with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom he may be 
at war at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to restore to 
such tribes, or nations, respectively, all the possessions, rights, and 
privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in 
1811, previous to such hostilities. 

Provided always, that such tribes or nations shall agree to desist 
from all hostilities against his Britannic majesty and his subjects, 
upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to such 
tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly. 

Article X. His Britannic majesty and the United States shall, 
by all the means in their power, restrain the Indians living within 
their respective dominions from committing hostilities against the 
territory, citizens, or subjects, of the other party : and both powers 
also agree and mutually pledge themselves, if at any time war 
should unhappily break out between them, not to employ any In- 
dians, nor to admit of their aid and co-operation in the prosecu- 
tion of the war against the other partj'. 

Article XI. Each party shall efiectually exclude from its naval 
and commercial service all seamen, seafaring, or other persons, 
subjects or citizens of the other party, not naturalized by the re- 
spective governments of the two parties, before the day of 

• ; seamen or other persons, subjects of either party, who 

shall desert from public or private ships or vessels, shall, when 
found within the jurisdiction of the other party, be surrendered, 

provided they be demanded within from the time of theii- 

desertion. 

No person whatever shall, upon the high seas, and without the 
jurisdiction of either party, be demanded or taken out of any ship 
or vessel, belonging to subjects or citizens of any of the parties, 
by the public or private armed ships or vessels belonging to, or in 
the service of, the other, unless such person be, at the time, in 
the actual employment of an enemy of such other party. This 

article shall continue in force for the term of • years. Nothing 

in this article contained shall be construed thei'cafter to aiiect or 
impair the rights of either party. 



^3 

Article XII. If either ofthe contracting parties shall hereafter be 
engaged in war against any third power, to which war the other of 
the parties shall renjain neutral, it is agreed that every vessel of the 
neutral party, sailing for a port or place belonging to the enemy 
of the belligerent, without knowing that the same is besieged, 
blockaded, or invested, may be turned away from such por' or 
place, but shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, 
be confiscated, unless, after such notice, she shall again attempt to 
enter : but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place 
she may think proper ; nor shall any vessel or goods of either 
party, that may have entered into such port or place before the 
same was besieged, blockaded, or invested by the other, and be 
found therein after the reduction or surrender of such place, be 
liable to confiscation, but shall be returned to the proprietors 
thereof: and, in order to determine what characterizes a blockaded 
port, that denomination is given only to a port where there is, by 
the disposition of the power which attacks it with ships, stationary, 
or sufficiently near, an evident danger in entering. 

Article XIII. It is agreed that indemnity shall be made by his 
Britannic majesty to the citizens ofthe United States, for all losses 
and damages sustained by them during the late war between Great 
Britain and France, and prior to the commencement ofthe present 
war, by reason of irregular or illegal captures, seizures, or con- 
demnations of vessels and other property, under colour of autho- 
rity! contrary to the known and established rules of the law of 
nations. And it is also agreed, that indemnity shall be made by 
each of the contracting parties, to the subjects or citizens of the 
other party, for all losses and damages sustained subsequent to the 
commencement of the present war, by reason of the seizure Or 
condemnation of the vessels or cargoes, belonging to the subjects 
or citizens ofthe one party, which, in the ordinary course of com- 
merce, happened at the commencement of hostilities to be in the 
ports of the other party ; and by reason ofthe destruction of un- 
fortified towns, and the pillage or destruction of private property, 
and the enticement and carrying away of negroes, contrary to the 
known and established rules and usages of war between civilized 
nations. 

It is agreed, that, for the purpose of determining the indemnities 
due by each contracting party, in conformity with the provisions 
of this article, commissioners shall be appointed in the following 
manner, viz : one commissioner shall be named by his Britannic 
majesty, and one by the President of the United States, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof j and the said 
two commissioners shall agree in the choice of a third ; or, if they 
cannot agree, they shall each propose one person, and of the two 
names so proposed, one shall be taken by lot, in the presence of 
the two original commissioners, and the three commissioners thus 
appointed, shall be sworn, and authorized and empowered, im- 
partially, to examine into all such claims and complaints, and to 
determine the indemnities which may be justly due for the same. 



24 

The said commissioners shall meet at and shall have 

J)ower to adjourn to such other place, or places, as. they shall 
think fit ; they shall also have power to appoint a secretary, swear 
and examine witnesses, and have all assistance and facilities neces- 
sary to effect the object of their appointment. 

The award of the said commissioners, or a majority of them, 
shall in all cases be final and conclusive, both as to the justice of 
the claim, and as to the amount of the sum to be paid to the claim- 
ant and claimants. And his Britannic majesty and the United States 
agree and undertake fo cause the sums so awarded to be due by 
them, respectively, to be paid in specie, to such claimant and 
claimants without deduction, and at such place or places, time or 
times, as shall be awarded by the commissioners. 

Article XIV. It is also agreed, that no person or persons, re- 
siding within the dominions of one of the parties, who may have 
taken part with the other party, in the war between Great Britain 
and the United States, shall, on that account, be prosecuted, mo- 
lested, or annoyed, either in his person or property ; and that all 
such persons disposed to remove into the dominions of the other 

party, shall be allowed the term of months, freely to sell 

their property, of every nature and description whatsoever, and 
to remove accordingly. 

Article XV. This treaty, when the same shall have been rati- 
fied on both sides, and the respective ratifications mutually ex- 
changed, shall be binding on both parties, and the ratification shall 

be exchanged at in the space of months from this day, 

or sooner, if possible. 

In faith whereof, we, the respective plenipotentiaries, have 
signed this treaty, and have thereunto affixed our seals, 

Done at Ghent, the day of one thousand eight hun- 
dred and fourteen. 



British JVote, No. 7. 

The undersigned have had the honour to receive the note and 
project of a treaty of peace presented by the American plenipo- 
tentiaries on the 10th instant. 

The undersigned are of opinion that the most convenient course 
for them to adopt will be to return this project with their marginal 
alterations and suggestions on the several articles of which it is 
composed. The existing differences between the two governments 
will thus be brought more immediately in view, and it is hoped 
that, by confining the discussions to one project, the negotiations 
may sooner be brought to a favourable conclusion. The first part 
of the 10th article appears to be unnecessary, and the stipulation 
contained in the whole of it altogether inadmissible. Though his 
majesty's government sincerely hopes that a renewal of the war 
between his majesty and the United States may be far distant, yet 
the undersigned cannot consent to enter into any engagement as to 
what shall be the conduct of their government, if such a war should 
^,nfortunately occur. 



25 

With respect to the 1 1th and 12th articles, his majesty's govern- 
ment has strongly manifested its sincere disposition to the speedy 
restoration of peace, by agreeing, under all the present circum- 
stances, to conclude the treaty without any stipulation on the points 
to which these articles relate. No advantage can arise from en- 
tering into discussions, upon a successful result of which the Ame- 
rican plenipotentiaries have stated, more than once, that they will 
not make the conclusion of the peace at all to depend. 

With respect to the 13th article, the indemnifications proposed 
by it, as applied to the actual circumstances of the war, are so 
unprecedented and objectionable, that any further perseverance of 
the American plenipotentiaries in requiring them, is not anticipated 
by the undersigned : if, however, contrary to expectation, indem- 
nifications of this kind should be required, all hope of bringing the 
nogotiations to a favourable issue must prove abortive. The un- 
dersigned are instructed explicitly to declare, that as their go- 
vernment nvakes ho claim on account of losses sustained by British 
subjects arising out of a war declared by the United States, so 
neither can their government agree to make compensation for losses, 
sustained in such a war by the American people. 

The utjdersigned are, however, willing to agree to a stipulation 
by which it shall be provided, that the courts of justice in each 
country shall be open to the just demands of the respective peo- 
ple, and that no obstruction be thrown in the way of their recovery 
of the rights, claims, or debts, of any kind respectively due or be- 
longing to them. 

With respect to the 14th article, the undersigned do not concur 
in the necessity for any such stipulation as is there proposed. 

The undersigned think proper to add, that, with respect to par- 
ticular alterations suggested by them in various articles of the 
project, they are ready to enter into such explanations as may be 
required of them, with the sincere desire of endeavouring to re- 
concile the pretensions brought forward on the part of their re- 
spective governments. 

The undersigned have forborne to insist upon the basis of uii 
possidetis, to the advantage of which they consider their country 
fully entitled. But should this negotiation terminate in a way 
contrary to their hopes and just expectations, they must protest 
against any claim or demand being urged by the American govern- 
ment in any future negotiation, in consequence of the facilities 
which his majesty's government have now shown themselves wil- 
ling to afford to the speedy restoration of peace. 

The undersigned avail themselves of the present opportunity to 
renew to the plenipotentiaries of the United States the assurance^- 
of their high consideration. « 

GAMBIER, 

HENRY GOULDBURN, 
WILLIAM ADAMS. 

Client, November 26th, 18"14, 



26 



Project of a Treaty, as returned by the British to the American Pleni- 
potentiaries, 26th November, 1814. 

Treaty of Peace and Amity, between his Britannic Majesty, and 
the United States of America. 



The following marginal remarks 
and alterations were made and 
proposed by the British pleni- 
potentiaries. 
JVote. It is proposed to omit 

altogether the word'; that are 

nnderlined. 



Article 1. 



(1) places or 

(2) after the exchange of the ra- 
tifications as herein after men- 
tioned. 

* It is thought more advisable 



His Britannic majesty and the 
United States of America, desi- 
rous of terminating the war which 
has unhappily subsisted between 
the two countries, and of restor- 
ing, upon principles of perfect re- 
ciprocity, peace, friendship, and 
good understanding, between 
them, have, for that purpose, ap- 
pointed their respective plenipo- 
tentiaries, that is to say, his Bri- 
tannic majesty on his part has 
appointed the right honourable 
James lord Gambier, admiral 
of the White Squadron, of his 
majesty's fleet, Henry Goulburn, 
esq. a member of the Imperial 
Parliament, and under Secretary 
of State, and William Adams, 
esq. Doctor of Civil Laws ; and 
the President of the United States, 
by and with advice and consent of 
the Senate thereof, has appointed 
John Q,uincy Adams, James A. 
Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan 
Russell, and AlbertGallatin, citi- 
zens of the United States, who, 
after a reciprocval communication 
of their respective full powers, 
have agreed upon the following 
articles. 

Article I. There shall be a 
firm and universal peace between 
his Britannic majesty and the 
United States and between their 
respective countries, territories, 
cities, towns, and people, of eve- 
ry degree, without exception of 
(i) persons or places. All hos- 
tilities, both by sea and land, 
shall immediately cease. (2) ^11 
prisoners on both sides shall be set 
at liberty.* All territory, places, 
and possessions, without excep- 



C7 



that the provision respecting pri- 
soners of war, should be the sub- 
ject of a separate article ; the 
draft of an article on this subject 
is subjoined. 

(1) belonging to 

(2) and taken by 

(3) of the 

(4) originally captured in the said 
forts or places, and which shall 
remain therein upon the ex- 
<r;hange of the ratifications of this 
iroatv. 



[o) as far as may be practicable. 

Article II. 
'n) shall have been exchanged, 



I ) exchange of the ratifications 



(8) the period of the exchange 
of the ratifications. 



(9) the same term of for 

all parts of the Mediterranean. 



tion, taken iy (1) either party 
fro7n (2) the other during the 
war, or which may be taken 
after the signing of this treaty, 
shall be restored without delay, 
and without causing any destruc- 
tion, or carrying away any (3) 
artillery or other public proper- 
ty, or any slaves or other pri- 
vate property, (4) and ail ar- 
chives, records, deeds, and pa- 
pers, either of a pubhc nature 
or belonging to private persons, 
which, in the course of the war, 
may have fallen into the hands of 
the officers of either parly, shall 
be (5) forthwith restored, and de- 
livered to the proper authorities 
and persons to whom they re- 
spectively belong. 

Article II. Immediately af- 
ter the respective ratifications of 
this treaty, (6) orders shall be 
sent to the armies, squadrons, 
officers, subjects, and citizens, 
of the two powers, to cease 
from all hostilities : and to pre- 
vent all causes of complaint, 
which might arise on account of 
the prizes which may be taken 
at sea, after the (7) signing of 
this treaty, it is reciprocally 
agreed, that the vessels and ef- 
fects which may be taken in the 
Channel, and in the North Seas, 

after the space of from 

(8) that of the signature hereof, 
shall be restored on each side ; 

that the term shall be 

from the Channel and the North 
Seas to the Canary islands inclu- 
sively, (9) whether in the ocean 

or the Mediterranean : of 

from the said Canary Islands to 
the equinoctial line or equator, 

and of in all other 

parts of the world without eX' 
caption. 



28 



Article III. Whereas itvvaa 
atipulated by the second article 
in the treaty of peace of 1 783, 
between his Britannic majesty 
and the United States of Ameri- 
ca, that the boundary of the 
United States should compre- 
hend " all islands within twenty 
leagues of any part of the shores 
of the United States, and lying 
between lines to be drawn due 
east from the points where the 
aforesaid boundaries between 
Nova Scotia on the one part, and 
East Florida on the other, shall, 
respectively, touch the Bay of 
Fundy, and the Atlantic ocean, 
excepting such islands as now 
are, or heretofore have been, 
within the limits of Nova Sco- 
tia :" And whereas claims have 
been made by the government 
of the United States to certain 
islands in the Bay of Fundy, 
which said islands are claimed 
as belonging to his Britannic 
majesty, as having been at the 
time of, and previous to, the 
aforesaid treaty of 1783, within 
the limits of the province of No- 
va Scotia : In order, therefore, 
finally to decide upon these 
claims, it ia agreed that they 
shall be referred to two com- 
missioners, to be appointed in 
the following manner, viz. one 
commissioner shall be appointed 
by his Britannic majesty, and 
one by the President of the 
United States, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate 
thereof, and the said two com- 
missioners, so appointed, shall 
be sworn impartially to examine 
and decide upon the said claims, 
according to such evidence as 
shall be laid before them on the 
part of his Britannic majesty and 
of the United States rcspective- 



AuTicLE III. WJiercaHy thai 
portion of the boundary between 
the dominions of his Britannic 
majesty in JS'orth America, and 
those of the United States, from 
the mouth of the river St. Croix 
(a* the said mouth was ascertain- 
ed by the commissioners appoini- 
ed for that purpose) to the Bay of 
Fundy, has not yet been regulated 
and determined : Jind whereas, 
the respective rights and claims 
of his Britannic Majesty and of 
the United States, to the several 
islands in the Bay of Passama- 
quoddy, and to the island of 
Grand Menan, have never been 
finally adjusted and determined, 
the said islands being claimed on 
the part of the United States as 
lying within tweiity leagues of 
their shores, and south of a line 
drawn due east from the mouth oj' 
the river St. Croix, and on the 
part of his Britannic majesty, as 
having been, at or before the for- 
mer treaty of peace, between the 
tivo countries, within the limits 
of the province of JVova Scotia . 
In order, therefore, finally to de- 
cide these several questions, it ?'.* 
agreed that they shall be referred 
to three commissioners, to be ap- 
pointed in the following manner^ 
vi2. one commissioner shall be ap- 
pointed by his Britannic majesty, 
and one by the President of the 
United States, by and with the ad- 
vice and consent of the Senate 
thereof, and the said two commis- 
sioners shall have power to choose 
a third, and if they cannot agree 
they shall eachproposc one person, 
and of the two names, so proposed, 
one shall be drawn by lot, in the 
presence of the two original com- 
missioners, and the three cominis- 
sioners, so appointed, shall be 
iTii'orn impartially to examine and 



29 



commissioners 
, and 



ly. The said 
shall meet at 
shall have power to adjourn to 
such other place, or places, as 
they shall think fit. The said 
commissioners shall, b}'^ a decla- 
ration or report, under their 
hands and seals, decide to which 
of the two contracting parties 
the several islands aforesaid do 
respectively belong, in conform- 
ity with the true intent of the 
said treaty of peace of 1783: 
and if the said commissioners 
shall agree in their decision, 
both parties shall consider such 
decision as final and conclusive. 
It is further agreed, that, in 
the event of the two commis- 
sioners differing upon all, or any, 
of the matters so referred to 
them, or in the event of both, or 
either of the said commissioners 
refusing, or declining, or wilful- 
ly omitting, to act as such, they 
shall make, jointly or separate- 
ly, a report, or reports, as well 
to the government of his Britan- 
nic majesty as to that of the 
United States, stating, in detail, 
the points on which they differ, 
and the grounds upon which 
their respective opinions have 
been formed ; or the grounds 
upon which they, or either of 
them, have so refused, declined, 
or omitted to act. And his Bri- 
tannic majesty, and the govern- 
ment of the United States, here- 
by agree to refer the report, or 
reports of the said commission- 
ers, to some friendly sovereign 
or state, to be then named for 
that purpose, and who shall be 
requested to decide on the dif- 
ferences which may be stated in 
the said report, or reports, or 
upon the report of one com- 
missioner, together with the 



decide the said questions^ accord- 
ing to such evidence as shall re- 
spectively be laid before them on 
the part of the British govern- 
ment, and of the United States. 
The said commissioners shall meet 
at , and shall have pow- 
er to adjourn to such other place, 
or places, as they shall think Jit. 
Tlie said commissioners, or a ma- 
jority of them, shall, by a decla- 
ration under their hands and 
seals, determine the boundary 
aforesaid from the mouth of the 
river St. Croix to the Bay of Fun- 
dy, and decide to which of the 
two contracting parties the several 
islands aforesaid do respectively 
belong, in conformity with the 
true intent of the former treaty 
of peace. And both parties agree 
to consider such decision as final 
and conclusive. 



30 



grounds upon which the other 
commissioner shall have so re- 
fused, dechned, or omitted to 
act, as the case may be. And if 
the commissioner so refusing, 
declining, or omitting to act, 
shall also wilfully omit to state 
the grounds upon which he has 
so done in such manner that the 
said statement may be referred 
to such friendly sovereign or 
state, together with the report 
of such other commissioner, 
then such sovereign, or state, 
shall decide, ex parte, upon the 
said report alone. And his Bri- 
tannic majesty, and the govern- 
ment of the United States, en- 
gage to consider the decision of 
such friendly sovereign or state, 
to be final and conclusive on all 
the matters so referred. 
Article IV. 



Article IV. Whereas, nei- 
ther that point of the Highlands 
lying due north from the source 
of the river St. Croix, and de- 
signated in the former treaty of 
peace between the two powers 
as the northwest angle of Nova 
Scotia, nor the northwestern- 
most head of Connecticut river, 
has yet been ascertained ; and 
whereas that part of the bound- 
ary line between the dominions 
of the two powers, which ex- 
tends from the source of the ri- 
ver St. Croix directly north to 
the above mentioned northwest 
angle of Nova Scotia ; thence, 
along the said Highlands, which 
divide those rivers that empty, 
themselves into the river St. 
Lawrence, from those which 
fall into the Atlantic ocean, to 
the northwesternmost head of 
Connecticut river ; thence, down 
along the middle of that river to 
the forty -fifih degree of north 
latitude ; thence, by a line due 



31 



(1) two. 



(2) unless otherwise specified 
in the present article. 



(3) of 178.^. 



(4) And, in the event of the 
said two commissioners differing, 
or both or either of them refus- 
ing, declining, or wilfully omit- 
ting to act, such reports, decla- 
rations, or statements, shall be 
made by them, or either of them; 
and such reference to a friendly 
sovereign or state shall be made, 
in all respects, as in the latter 
part of the third article is con- 
tained, and in as full a manner as 
if the same was herein repeated. 

Article V, 



west, on said latitude, until it 
strikes the river Iroquois, or 
Cataraguy, has not yet beeu sur- 
veyed. It is agreed that, for 
these several purposes three (1) 
commissioners shall be appoint- 
ed, sworn, {mutatis mutandis) 
and authorized to act exactly ia 
the manner directed with re- 
spect to those mentioned in the 
next preceding article.(2) The 
said commissioners shall meet 
at , and shall have pow- 
er to adjourn to such other place 
or places as they shall think fit. 
The said commissioners, or a 
majority of them, shall have 
power to ascertain and deter- 
mine the points abovementioned, 
in conformity with the provi- 
sions of the said treaty of peace, 
(3) and shall cause the boundary- 
aforesaid, from the source of the 
river St. Croix to the river Iro- 
quois, or Cataraguy, to be sur- 
veyed and marked according to 
the said provisions. 

The said commissioners, or a 
majority of them, shall make a 
map of the said boundary, and 
annex to it a declaration, under 
their hands and seals, certifying 
it to be the true map of the said 
boundary, and particularizing 
the latitude and longitude of the 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia, 
of the north westernmost head 
of Connecticut river, and of such 
other points of the said boundary 
as they may deem proper ; and 
both parties agree to consider 
such map and declaration as 
finally and conclusively fixing 
the said boundary. (4) 

Article V. Whereas, by the 
former treaty of peace, that por- 
tion of the boundary of the 
United States, from the point 
where the forty-fifth degree of 



32 



(1) doubts 

(2) two. 



(3) unless otherwise specified 
in Ibis present article. 



(4) report or 



north latitude strikes the river 
Iroquois, or Cataraguy, to the 
Lake Superior, was declared to 
be along the middle of said river 
into Lake Ontario, through the 
middle ot'said lake until it striked 
the communicatiofl by water be- 
tween that lake and Lake Erie ; 
thence, along the middle of said 
communication, into Lake Erie, 
through the middle of said lake 
until it arrives at the water com- 
irtunication into the Lake Huron; 
thence, through the middle of 
said lake, to the water communi- 
cation between that lake and 
lake Superior : And whereas 
doubts have arisen what was the 
middle of the said river, lakes, 
and water communications, and 
whether certain islands, lying 
in the same, were within the do- 
minions of his Britannic majes- 
ty, or of the United States : la 
order, therefore, finally to de- 
cide these questions ,(1) they shall 
be referred to (2) three commis- 
sioners, to be appointed, sworn, 
(mutatis mutandis^ and authoriz- 
ed to act exactly in the manner 
directed with respect to those 
mentioned in the next preceding 
article. (3) The said commis- 
sioners shall meet, in the first 

instance, at — ■ -, and shall 

have power to adjourn to such 
other place or places as they 
shall think fit. The said com- 
missioners, or a majority ofthemy 
shall, by a (4) declaration, under 
their hands and seals, designate 
the boundary through the said 
river, lakes, and water commu- 
nications, and decide to which of 
the two contracting parties the 
several islands lying within the 
said rivers, lakes, and water 
communications, do respectively 
belong, in conformity with the 



33 



(1) said treaty of 1783. 

(2) dasignation and 

(3) And in the event of the 
said two commissioners differing, 
or both or either of them refus- 
ing, declining, or wilfully omit- 
ing to act, such reports, declara- 
tions, or statements, shall be 
made by them, or either of 
them ; and such refer«>nce to a 
friendly sovereign or state shall 
be made, in all respects, as in 
the latter part of the third arti- 
cle is contained, and in as full a 
inanuer as if the same was herein 
repeated. 

ArTI JLE VI, 

(4) two 



■5) of 1783. 



(6) of 1783, 



(1) reporter. 



true intent of the {\) former 
treaty of peace ; and both par. 
ties agree to consider such (2) 
decision as tinal and <?onciu- 
sJve.(3) 



Article VI. It is further 
agreed, that the said (4) last 
mentioned commissioners, after 
they shall have executed the du- 
ties assigned to them in the pre- 
ceding article, shall be, and they, 
or a majority of them, are hereby 
authorized, upon their oaths, 
impartially to fix and determine, 
according to the true intent of 
the said former treaty of peace, 
(5) that part of the boundary be- 
tween the dominions of the' two 
powers which extends from the 
water communication between 
Lake Huron and Lake Superior, 
to the most northwestern point of 
the Lake of the Woods ; to de- 
cide to which of the two parties 
the several islands lying in the 
lakes, water communications, 
and rivers, forming the said 
boundary, do respectively be- 
long, in conformity with the true 
intent of the said former treaty 
of peace, (6) and to cause such 
parts of the said boundary, as re- 
quire it,to be surveyed and mark- 
ed. The said commissioners, 
or a majority of them, shall, by a 
(l)declaration, under their bands- 



34 



(1) poinlsr> 



(2) parts of. 



(3) designation and. 

(4) And in the event of the 
'said two commissioners differing, 
or both or either of them refus- 
ing, declining, or wilfully omit- 
ting to act, such, reports, decla- 
rations, or statement?, shall be 
made by them, or either of 
them ; and such reference to a 
friendly sovereign or state shall 
be made in all respects as in the 
latter part of the third article is 
contained, and in as full a man- 
ner as if the same was herein 
repeated. 

Article VII. 

(5) two. 



(6) all. (7) reports. 

(8) statements. 

(9) and. 



and seals, designate the bound- 
ary aforesaid, state their deci- 
sion on the (1) questions thus re- 
ferred to them, and particularize 
the latitude agd longitude of the 
most northwestern point of the 
Lake of the Woods, and of such 
other (2) points on the said 
boundary, as they may deem 
proper ; and both parties agree 
to consider such (3) decision as 
final and conclusive. (4) 



(10) contracting. 



Article VII. The several 
boards of (5) commissioners men- 
tioned in the four preceding ar- 
ticles, shall respectively have 
power to appoint a secretary, 
and to employ such surveyors, 
or other persons, as they shall 
judoe necessary. Duplicates of 
(6) their respective (7) declara- 
tions (8) and decisions of the 
statement (9) of their accounts, 
and of the journal of their pro- 
ceedings, shall be delivered by 
them to the agents of his Britan- 
nic majesty, and to the agents of 
the United States, who may be 
respectively appointed and au- 
thorized to manage the business 
in behalf of their respective go- 
vernments. The said commis- 
sioners shall be respectively 
paid in such manner as shall be 
agreed between th e two ( 1 0) par- 
ties, such agreement being to be 



35 



»1) equally. 



(2) contracting. 



(3) or of the sovereign or state 
so referred to, as in many of the 
preceding articles contained. 



Article VIII. It is agreed 
that a line, drawn due west, from 
the Lake of the Woods, along 
the 49th parallel of north lati- 
tude, shall he the line of demar- 
cation between his Britannic 
majesty's territories and those 
of the United States, to the west- 
%vard of the said Lake, so far as 
the territories of the United 
States extend in that quarter; 



settled at the time of the ex- 
change of the ratifications of this 
treaty ; and all other expenses 
attending the said commissions, 
shall be defrayed (1) jointly by 
the two parties, the same being 
previously ascertained and allow- 
ed by the majority of the commis- 
sioners. And in the case of 
death, sickness, resignation, or 
necessary absence, the place of 
every such commissioner, re- 
spectively, shall be supplied in 
the same manner as such com- 
missioner was first appointed ; 
and the new commissioner shall 
take the same oath, or affirma- 
tion, and do the same duties. 

It is further agreed between 
the two (2) parties, that, in case 
any of the islands mentioned in 
any of the preceding articles, 
which were in the possession of 
one of the parties, prior to the 
commencement of the present 
tvar between the two countries, 
should, by the decision of any 
of the boards of commissioners 
aforesaid, (4) fall within the do- 
minions of the other party, all 
grants of lands made previous to 
that time, by the party having 
had such possession, shall be as 
valid, as if such island or islands 
had, by such decision or deci- 
sions, been adjudged to be within 
the dominions of the party hay. 
ing had such possession. 

Article VIII. It is agreed 
that a line, drawn due north or 
south, (as the case may be) from 
the most northwestern point of the 
Lake of the Woods,"'until it shall 
intersect the forty-ninth parallel 
of north latitude, and from the 
point of such intersection due 
west, along and with, the said 
parallel, shall be the dividing 
line between his majesty's ter- 



3e 



mid the said line shaH, to that ex- 
tent, form the southern boundary 
ef his Britannic Majesty's terri- 
tories, and the northern bounda- 
ry of the territories of the United 
States. It being always distinctly 
understood, that nothing in the 
present article shall be construed 
to extend to the Northwest 
Coast of America, or to territo- 
ries belonging to, or claimed by, 
either party, on the continent of 
America, westward of the Stony 
Mountains. [And it is further 
agreed, the subjects of his Bri- 
tannic majesty shall, at all times, 
have access from his Britannic 
majesty's territories, by land or 
inland navigation, into the afore- 
said territories of the United 
States to the river Mississippi, 
with their goods, effects, and 
merchandise, and that his Britan- 
nic majesty's subjects shall nave 
and enjoy the free navigation of 
the said river.] 

Article IX. 

Approved,. 



ritories and those of the United 
States, to the westward nf the said 
Lake, as far as their said respec- 
tive territories extend in that 
quarter; and that the said line 
shall, to that extent, form the 
southern boundary of his Britan- 
nic majesty'' s said territories, and 
the northern boundary of the said 
territories of the United States : 
Provided, that nothing in the pre- 
sent article shall be construed to 
extend to the Northwest Coast of 
America, or to the territories be- 
longing to, or claimed by, either 
party, on the continent of America, 
to the westward of the Ston^/ 
Mountains. 



Article IX. The United 
States of America engage to put 
an end, immediately after the 
ratification of the present treaty, 
to hostilities with all the tribes 
or nations of Indians with whom 
they may be at war, at the time 
of such ratification, and forth- 
with to restore to such tribes or 
nations, respectively, all the 
possessions, rights, and privi- 
leges, which they may have en- 
joyed, or been entitled to, in 
1811, previous to such hostili- 
ties : Provided always, that such 
tribes or nations shall agree to 
desist from all hostilities against 
the United States of America, 
their citizens, and subjects, upon 
the ratification of the present 
treaty being notified to such 
tribes or nations, and shall so 
desist accordinglv. And his Bri- 



37 



Article X, 
Inadmissible:. 



Article XI. 
Inadmissible. 



tannic majesty engages, on his 
part, to put an end, immediately 
after the ratitication of the pre- 
sent treaty, to hostilities with all 
the tribes or nations of Indians 
with whom he may be at war, at 
the time of such ratification, and 
forthwith to restore to such 
tribes or nations, respectively, 
9II the possessions, rights, and 
privileges, which they may have 
enjoyed or been entitled to in 
1811, previous to such hostili- 
ties : Provided always, that such 
tribes or nations shall agree to 
desist from all hostilities against 
his Britannic majesty and his 
subjects, upon the ratification of 
the present treaty being notified 
to such tribes or nations, and 
shall so desist accordingly. 

Article X. His Britannic 
majesty and the United States 
shall, by all the means in their 
power, restrain the Indians living 
within their respective domin- 
ions from committing hostili- 
ties against the territory, citi- 
zens, or subjects, of the other 
party. And both powers also 
agree and mutually pledge them- 
selves, if at any time war should 
unhappily break out between 
them, not to employ any Indians, 
nor to admit of their aid and co- 
operation in the prosecution of 
the war against the other party. 

Article XI. Each party shall 
effectually exclude from iis na- 
val and commercial service, all 
seamen, seafaring, or other per- 
sons, subjects or citizens of the 
other party, not naturalized by 
the respective governments of 
the two parties before the — — = 
day of . 

Seamen, or other persons, 
subjects of either party, who shall 
desert from public or private 



30 

ships or vessels, shall, when 
found within the jurisdiction of 
the other party, be surrendered, 
provided they be demanded with- 
in from the time of their 

desertion. ' 

No person whatever shall, 
upon the high seas, and without 
the jurisdiction of either party, 
be demanded, or taken out of any 
ship or vessel belonging to sub- 
jects or citizens of any of the 
parties, by the public or private 
armed ships or vessels belonging 
to, or in the service of, the other, 
unless such person be, at the 
time, in the actual employment 
" • of an enemy of such other party. 

This article shall continue ia 

force for the term of years. 

Nothing in this article contained 
shall be construed thereafter to 
affect or impair the rights of ei- 
ther party. 
Article XfL Article XII. If either of the 

fnadroissible. contracting parties shall hereaf- 

ter be engaged in a war against 
any third power, to which war 
the other of the parties shall re- 
main neutral, it is agreed that 
every vessel of the neutral par- 
ty sailing for a port or place be- 
longing to the enemy of the 
belligerent, without knowing that 
the same is besieged, blockaded, 
or invested, may be turned away 
from such port or place, but 
shall not be detained, nor her 
cargo, if not contraband, be con- 
fiscated, unless, after such no- 
tice, she shall again attempt to 
enter ; but she shall be permitted 
to go to any other port or place 
she may think proper. Nor 
■* ' shall any vessel or goods of either 

party, that may have entered 
into such port or place before 
the same was besieged, block- 
aded, or invested^ by the other, 



3fi 

and be found therein after the 
reduction or surrender of such 
place, be liable to confiscation, 
but shall be restored to the pro- 
prietors thereof : and, in order 
to determine what characterizes 
a blockaded port, that denomina- 
tion is given only to a por; where 
there is, by the dispositiou of the 
power which attacks it with 
ships stationary or sufficiently 
near, an evident danger in en- 
tering. 
Article XIII. Article XIII. It is agreed that 

Inadmissible. indemnity shall be made by his 

Britannic majesty to the citizens 
of the United States, for all losses 
and damages sustained by them 
during the late war between 
Great Britain and France, and pri- 
or to the commencement of the 
present war, by reason of irregu= 
lar or illegal captures, seizures, 
or condemnations of vessels and 
other property, under colour of 
authority, contrary to the known 
and established rules of the law 
of nations. And it is also agreed, 
that indemnity shall be made, by 
each of the contracting parties, 
to the subjects or citizens of the 
other party, for all losses and 
damage sustained subsequent to 
the commencement of the pre- 
sent war, by reason of the sei- 
zure or condemnation of the 
vessels or cargoes, belonging to 
the subjects or citizens of the 
other party, which, in the ordi- 
nary course of commerce, hap- 
pened, at the commencement of 
hostilities, to be in the ports of 
the other party ; and by reason 
of the destruction of unfortified 
towns, and the pillage or destruc- 
tion of private property, and the 
enticement and carrying away of 
negroes, contrary to the known 
and established rules and usages 



40 



of war, between civilized na- 
tions. 

It is agreed that, for the pur- 
pose of determining the indem- 
nities due by each contracting 
party, in conformity with the 
provisions of this article, com- 
missioners shall be appointed, 
in the following manner, viz : 
one commissioner shall be named 
by his Britannic majesty, and one 
by the President of the United 
States, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate there- 
of; and the said two commission- 
ers shall agree in the choice of 
a third ; or, if they cannot agree, 
they shall each propose one 
person, and of the two names so 
proposed, one shall be taken by 
lot, in the presence of the two 
original commissioners, and the 
three commissioners, thus ap- 
pointed, shall be sworn and au- 
thorized and empowered, impar- 
tially, to examine into all such 
claims and complaints, and to 
determine the indemnities which 
may be justly due for the same. 

The said commissioners shall 
meet at , and shall have pow- 
er to adjourn to such other place 
or places as they shall think fit ; 
they shall also have power to ap- 
point a secretary, swear and ex- 
amine witnesses, and have all as- 
sistance and facilities necessary 
to effect the object of their ap- 
pointment. 

The award of the said com 
missioners, or a majority of them, 
shall, in all cases, be final and 
conclusive, both as to the justice 
of the claim and as to the amount 
of the sum to be paid to the 
claimant and claimants ; and his 
Britannic majesty and the Unit- 
ed States agree and undertake 
to cause the sums so awarded {o 



41 



Article XIV. 
Inadmissible. 



Article XV. 



^1) Washington, 
cable despatch. 

(2) practicable. 



with all practi- 



be due by them, respectively, to 
be paid in specie, to such claim- 
ant and claimants, without de- 
duction, and at such place or 
places, time or times, as shall be 
awarded by the commissioners. 
Article XIV. it is also agreed, 
that no person or persons, re- 
siding within the dominions of 
one of the parties, who may have 
taken part with the other party 
in the war between Great Britain 
and the United States, shall, on 
that account, be prosecuted, mo- 
lested, or annoyed, either in his 
person or property ; and that all 
such persons disposed to remove 
into the dominions of the other 
party, shall be allowed the term 

of months, freely to sell 

their property, of every nature 
and description v. hatsoever, and 
to remove accordingly. 

Article XV. This treaty, 
when the same shall have been 
ratified on both sides, and the 
respective ratifications mutually 
exchanged, shall be binding on 
both parties, and the ratifica- 
tions shall be exchanged at (1) 

in the space of monthg 

from this day, or sooner if pos- 
sible. (2) 

In faith whereof, we, the re- 
spective plenipotentiaries, have 
signed this treaty, and have 
thereunto affixed our seals. 

Done at Ghent, the day 

of one thousand eight hun- 
dred and fourteen. 



True copy of the project submitted by the American to the Bri- 
tish ministers, and also of the marginal changes, propositions, and 
remarks, made by the latter on returning their answer to the Ame- 
rican ministers' note, communicating said project of a treaty. 

C. HUGHES, Jr. 
Secretary American Mission extraordinary^ 



42 

Draft of article to be inserted immediately after article 2d of the' 
American project* 

All prisoners of war taken on either siJe, as well by land as by 
sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable, after the ratifications 
of this treaty shall have been exchanged, on their paying the debts 
which they may have contracted during their captivity. The two 
contracting parties respectively engage to discharge, in specie, the 
advances which may have been made by the other, for the suste- 
nance and maintenance of such prisoners. 



American JVo. 7, in reply to British No, 7. 

Ghent, 3oth Nov. 1814. 

The undersigned have had the honour to receive the note of 
the British plenipotentiaries of the 26th instant, together with their 
marginal alterations and suggestions, on the several articles of the 
project of a treaty of peace, ])roposed by the undersigned 

The undersigned consent that the day of the exchange of ratifi- 
cations be substituted to that of the signature of the treaty, as the 
time for the cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the periods 
after which prizes at sea shall be restored : it being understood 
that measures shall be adopted for a speedy exchange of ratifica- 
tion?, and that the periods in the second article shall be fixed in a 
jnanner corresponding with this alteration. 

The undersigned will also agree to the new article respecting 
prisoners, and to the mode of rcterence proposed by the British 
plenipotentiaries in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh arti- 
cles, instead of that which had been proposed by the undersigned, 
But, in order to prevent delay, they will suggest that a time be 
fixed, within which the commissioners shall make their decisions 
and reports. 

The undersigned will decline insisting upon the 10th, 12tb, and 
14th articles, and upon so much of the 13th article as relates to 
indemnities lor losses and damages sustained subsequent to the 
commencement of the present war. They wish to discuss the cases 
of vessels and property, in port when war was declared or known ; 
and have the honour to enclose a copy of the provision made in 
that respect by the United States. They will also waive the resi- 
due of that (the 13th) article, and the 11th article, it being under- 
stood that the rights of both powers on the subject of seamen, and 
the claims of the citizens and subjects of the two contracting par- 
ties, to indemnities for losses and damages sustained prior to the 
commencement of the war, shall not be affected, or impaired, by 
the omission in the treaty of any specific provision with respect to 
those two subjects. 

* Proposed by the British ministers. 



43 

In forbearing to insist Open the discussion of subjects deeply 
involving interests important to their country, and upon which the 
undersigned view the proposals offered by them for consideration 
as founded on principles the most moderate and conciliatory, they 
give the strongest evidence of the anxious wish cf their government 
that the negotiation should be broupht to a happy issue. 

Sincerely participating in the desire expressed by the British 
plenipotentiaries, of endeavouring to reconcile the pretensions of 
both governments on the few subjects remaining for discussion, the 
undersigned have also assented to most of the alterations, proposed 
by the British plenipotentiaries, to those parts of the project which 
they have not entirely rejected. 0:^ [To some of these alterations 
the undersigned are compelled by their duty to object. They have 
already stated, and now repeat, that, whilst requiVing of Great 
Britain no sacrifice whatever, the government of the United States 
has not authorized the undersigned to agree to any stipulation in- 
volving any cession of the territory, or the dereliction of any of the 
essential rights of the people of the United States. 

The objections of the undersigned are to one of the alterations 
suggested by the British plenipotentiaries in the first article ; to 
some parts of the preamble of the third article ; and to the eighth 
article ;] and they have also some other verbal alterations to sug- 
gest. They request a conference, at such time and place as may 
suit the British plenipotentiaries, for the purpose of discussing 
those points, and of agreeing on the places and times left in blank 
in several of the articles. 

The undersigned renew to the British plenipotentiaries the as- 
surance of their high consideration. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 
J. A. BAYARD, 
HENRY CLAY, 
JONATHAN RUSSELL, 
ALBERT GALLATIN. 
To the PLenipotentiarJes of his Britannic 

•^ majesty, &c. &c. ilc. 



Extract of a law of the United States passed July Glh, 1812. 

" Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the President of the 
United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, to give, at any 
time, within six months after the passage of this act, passports for 
the safe transportation of any ship or other property belonging to 
British subjects, and which is now within the limits of the United 



States. 



British Jfote JVo. 8. 
The undersigned have the honour to acknowledge the receipt 
of the note addressed to them by the American plenipotentiaries. 



44 

and in compHaacc with their request for a conference, shall be- 
happy to receive them at the Chartreux to-morrow at 12 o'clock. 

The undersigned request the American plenipotentiaries to ac'- 
cept the assurance of their high consideration. 

GAM BIER, 

HENRY GOULBURN, 
WILLIAM ADAMS. 
Cheat, Nov. 30ih, 1811. 



Protocol of a conference, held the 1st December, 1814, at Ghent. 

At a coiifei^ence held this day, the American plenipotentiaries 
proposed the following alterations in their project, as amended by 
the British plenipotentiaries. 

1. In article 1st, strike out the alteration consisting of the words 
" belonging to, and taken by," and preserve the original reading, 
viz. " taken by either party from the other." 

This alteration was objected to by the British plenipotentiaries, 
and after some discussion, reserved by them for the consideration 
of their government. 

2. Transpose alteration consisting of the words " originally cap- 
tured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein 
upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty/' after the 
words " public property." 

Agreed to by the British plenipotentiaries. 

3. Article 2d. The term to be fifteen days in the Channel, in 
the North Seas, in all parts of the Atlantic ocean to the equinoctial 
line or equator, and in all parts of the Mediterranean. Two months 
in the Atlantic ocean, to the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope, 
and three months in all other parts of the world. 

In lieu of this alteration, the British plenipotentiaries proposed 
the following, viz. " That all vessels and elTects which may be taken 
after the space of twelve days from the period of the exchange of 
the said ratifications, upon all parts of the coasts of North America, 
from the latitude of 23 deg. north, to the latitude of 47 deg. north 
and as far eastward in the Atlantic ocean as the 65 deg. of west 
longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on 
each side. That the term shall be thirty days in all other parts of 
the Atlantic ocean, as far eastward as the entrance of the British 
Channel, and southward as far as the equinoctial line or equator, 
and th,e same time for the Gulf of Mexico and all parts of the West 
Indies. Forty days for the British Channel and the North Seas. 
The same time for all parts of the Mediterranean, and one hun- 
dred and fifty days for s^\ other parts of the world, without excep- 
tion." Which was reserved by the American plenipotentiaries 
for consideration. 

4. Article 3d. After the words " all islands within twenty leagues- 



45 

of," insert " any part of" and substitute " points" for " point," af- 
ter the words " to be drawn due east from the." 

Agreed to by the British plenipotenitaries, 

5. Article 3d. Strike out the words " whereas claims have been 
made by the government of the United States to certain islands in 
the Bay of Fundy," and insert, " whereas the severals islands in 
the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of the Bay of Fundy, 
and the island of Grand Menan, in the said Bay of Fundy, are 
claimed by the United States, as being comprehended within the 
aforesaid boundaries." 

Agreed to by the British plenipotentiaries. 

C. Article 7tb. In the alteration, consisting of the words "or of 
the sovereign or state so referred to as in many of the preceding 
articles contained," substitute " any" to " many." 

Not insisted on ; the British plenipotentiaries consenting to sub- 
stitute the words " the four next" for the marginal words *' many 
of the." 

7. Articles 3, 4, 5, and 6. Provide that the decisions of the 
commissioners shall be made within a limited time. 

Objected to by the British plenipotentiaries. 

8. Article 8th. Substitute, after the words " to the westward of 
the said lake so far as," the words " their said respective territo- 
ries," instead of the words " the territories of the United States." 

Agreed to by the British plenipotentiaries. 

0:::5=[9. Article 8th. Strike out from the words " and it is fur- 
ther agreed," to the end. 

Reserved by the British plenipotentiaries for the consideration 
of their government. 

10. The American plenipotentiaries also proposed the following 
amendment to Article 8th, viz. " The inhabitants of the United 
States shall continue to enjoy the liberty to take, dry, and cure 
fish, in places within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain, as 
secured by the former treaty of peace ; and the navigation of the 
river Mississippi, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United 
States, shall remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain, 
in the manner secured by the said treaty ; and it is further agreed, 
that the subjects of his Britannic majesty shall at all times have 
access, from such place as may be selected for that purpose, in his 
Britannic majesty's aforesaid territories, west, and within three 
hundred miles of the Lake of the Woods, in the aforesaid territo- 
ries of the United States, to the i'iver Mississippi, in order to enjoy 
the benefit of the navigation of that river, with their goods, elTects, 
and merchandise, whose importation into the said States shall not 
be entirely prohibited, on the payment of the same duties as would 
be payable on the importation of the same into the Atlantic ports 
of the said States, and on conforming with the usual custom-house 
regulations." 

This amendment Mas left with the British plenipotentiarif^s for 
consideration. 

6 



46 

The American plenipotentiaries also intimated their willingness 
to omit Article 8th altogether, if that course should appear more 
adriBable to the British plenipotentiaries.] 

The American plenipotentiaries further proposed, in conformity 
nith their note of Noyember 30th, indemnifications for ships de- 
tained in British ports on the breaking out of the war, and after- 
wards condemned ; which was resisted by the British plenipoten- 
tiaries. 

After much discussion oa this point, the conference was ad- 
journed. 

Protocol oj Conference on December lOtk, 1814. — Ghent. 

The Protocol of the preceding conference, held on the Ul 
instant, was settled. 

The British plenipotentiaries stated that their government could 
not consent to omit the words in article 1st, " belonging to either 
party and taken by the other," unless some modification should be 
introduced, either by excepting from mutual restitution all those 
territories which are made by any articles of the treaty the subject 
of reference to commissioners, or by excepting the Passamaquoddy 
Islands alone. 

Received by the American plenipotentiaries for consideration. 

0^[The British plenipotentiaries then stated, that with respect 
to the 8th article, their government oifered, in lieu of the American 
proposals, to retain the amended article as far as the words " Stony 
Mountains," and to insert the following stipulation : 

"His Britannic majesty agrees to enter into negotiation with the 
United States of America respecting the terms, conditions, and re- 
gulations, under which the inhabitants of the said United States 
shall have the liberty of taking fish on certain parts of the coast of 
Newfoundland, and other his Britannic majesty's dominions in North 
America, and of drying and curing fish in the unsettled bays, har- 
bours, and creeks, of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, 
as stipulated in the latter part of the 3d article of the treaty of 1783, 
in consideration of a fair equivalent, to be agreed upon between his 
majesty and the said United States, and granted by the said United 
Slates for such liberty aforesaid. 

" The United States of America agree to enter into negotiation 
with his Britannic majesty respecting the terms, conditions, and re- 
gulations, under which the navigation of the river Mississippi, from 
its source to the ocean, as stipulated in the 8th article o^'the treaty 
of 1783, shall remain free and open to the subjects of Great Bri- 
tain, in consideration of a fair equivalent, to be agreed upon be- 
tween his majesty and the United States, and granted by his mz^ 

Received by the American plenipotiaries for consideration. 
In the 7th article the British plenipotentiaries proposec^, after 
the words " all grants of land made previous to," to omit the words 



47 

<■' to t3iat time," and insert " previous to the commencement of thft 
war ;" so that the line would read *' all grants of land made pre- 
vious to the commencement of the war." 

Agreed to. 

The British plenipotentiaries proposed the insertion of the fol- 
lowing article relative to the slave trade. 

" Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcileable with the prin- 
ciples of humanity and justice, and whereas both hin majesty and 
the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote 
its entire aOolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting 
parties shall exert every means in their power to accomplish so 
desirable an object.'' 

Received for consideration. 

The British plenipotentiaries proposed the following provision : 

" That the citizens or subjects of each of the contracting parties 
may reciprocally sue in the courts of the other, and shall meet 
with no impediment to the recovery of all such estates, rights, pro- 
perties, or securities, as may be due to them by the laws of the 
country in whose courts they shall sue." 

Received for consideration. 

The British plenipotentiaries proposed in the preamble to the 
project of the treaty to omit the wrords " Admiral of the White 
Squadron," and insert " late Admiral of the White, now Admiral 
of the Red," in lieu of them. 

Agreed to. 

The American plenipotentiaries stated that possibly doubta 
might arise as to the geographical accuracy of the words at the be- 
ginning of the 8th article — " a line drawn due west from the Lake 
of the Woods along the 49th parallel of north latitude." 

It was agreed that an alteratioa should be made t" guard against 
such possible inaccuracy. 

The American plenipotentiaries proposed the following altera- 
tion in the draft delivered to them by the British plenipotentiaries, 
relative to the manner of filling up the blanks in article 2d : " J^x- 
tend the term of 12 days to 50 degrees north latitude, and to the 
3Gth west longitude ; include the British and Irish channels in the 
term of 30 days ; include the Baltic in the term of 40 days ; instead 
of term of 1 50 days, insert 60 days for the Atlantic, as far as the lati- 
tude of the Cape of Good Hope ; 90 days for every other part of the 
world south of the equator; 120 days fur all other partti ot the world," 

The conference then ended. 



Protocol of Conference on Becemhcr 12<fe, 1814. 

The Protocol of the preceding conference, held on the IQth in» 
stant, was settled. 

Ct:^ [After much discussion relative to the 1st and 8th articles, the 
conference ended by the American plenipotentiaries undertaking 
to return an answer, in writing, to the propositions brought ibrward 
\iy the British plecipoteutiaries, at the lust contereuce.] 



4l 

American NoUy No. 8, tvritten after the Conference of i2th of De- 
cember, 1814. 

Ghent, December I4th, 1814. 
The undersigned, having considered the propositions offered, in 
the conference of the 10th instant, by the Biitish plenipotentiaries, 
on the few subjects which remain to be adjusted, now have the ho- 
nour of making the communication which they promised. 

The tirst of them relates to the mutual restoration of the territo- 
ry taken by either party from the other, during the war. In ad- 
mitting this principle, which the undersigned had repeatedly de- 
clared to be the only one upon which they were authorized to treat, 
the British plenipotentiaries had, at first, proposed an alteration in 
the article offered by the undersigned, limiting the stipulation of re- 
storing territory taken during the war, to territory belonging to the 
party from which it was taken. The objection of the undersigned 
to this alteration was, that a part of the territory thus taken being 
claimed by both parties, and made a subject of conference by the 
treaty, the alteration would leave it in the power of one party to 
judge whether any portion of territory taken by him during the war, 
did or did not belong to the other party, laying thereby, in the very 
instrument of pacification, the foundation of an immediate misun- 
derstanding, the moment that instrument should be carried into ex- 
ecution. 

The British plenipotentiaries have now proposed to omit the 
words originally offered by them, provided, that the Passamaquod- 
dy Islands should alone be excepted from the mutual restitution of 
territory. 

The consent of the undersigned to this solitary exception, if 
founded on the alleged right of Great Britain to those islands, might 
be construed as an implied admission of a better title on her part, 
than on that of the United States, and would necessarily affect their 
claim. The only ground for the exception consists in the allega- 
tion of the British plenipotentiaries that Great Britain had, during 
some period subsequent to the treaty of peace of 1783, exercised 
jurisdiction over those islands, and that the United States had sub- 
sequently occupied them, contrary to the remonstrances of the 
British government, and before the question of title had been ad- 
justed. 

Under these considerations, the undersigned, unwilling to pre- 
vent the conclusion of the treaty of peace, will take upon them- 
selves the responsibility of agreeing to the exception proposed, 
with a provision, that the claim of the United States shall not, 
thereby, be in any manner affected. The undersigned have ac- 
cordingly prepared a clause to that effect, and which provides, also, 
that the temporary possession may not be converted into perma- 
nent occupancy. They had agreed to the alteration proposed by 
the British plenipotentiaries in the modeof reference of the several 
boundaries and territory in dispute, under the expectation that the 



49 

proposed exception to a general restoration would not be insisted 
on, and they will add, that the objection to the temporary posses- 
sion by Great Britain of the Passamaquoddy Islnnds, would be con- 
siderably lessened by adopting a mode of reference which would 
insure a speedy and certain decision. 

I^To the stipulation now proposed by the British plenipotentia- 
ries as a substitute for the last paragraph of the 8th article, the un- 
dersigned cannot accede. 

The proposition made, respecting the navigation of the Missis- 
sippi, in the alteration first proposed by the British plenipotentia- 
ries to that article, was unexpected. In their note of the 31st of 
October, they had stated, that they had brought forward in their 
note of the 21st of the same month, all the propositions which they 
had to offer ; and that subject was not mentioned either in this last 
mentioned note, or in the first conference to which it referred. In 
order to obviate any difficulty arising from a presumed connection 
between that subject and that of the boundary proposed by the 8th 
article, the undersigned expressed their willingness to omit the ar- 
ticle altogether. For the purpose of meeting what they believed 
to be the wishes of the British government, they proposed the in- 
sertion of an article which should recognise the right of Great Bri- 
tain to the navigation of that river, and that of the United States to 
a liberty in certain fisheries, which the British government consi- 
dered as abrogated by the war. To such an article, which they 
v) ;wed as merely declaratory, the undersigned had no objection, 
and have offered to accede. They do not, however, want any 
new article on either of those subjects : they have offered to be 
silent with regard to both. To the stipulation now proposed, or to 
any other, abandoning, or implying the abandonment of, any right 
in the fisheries claimed by the United Stales, they cannot subscribe. 
Asa stipulation merely, that the parties will hereafter negotiate 
concerning the subjects in question, it appears also unnecessary. 
Yet, to an engagement couched in general terms, so as to embrace 
all the subjects of difference not yet adjusted, or so expressed as to 
imply in no manner whatever an abandonment of any right claimed 
by the United States, the undersigned are ready to agree.] 

Since neither of the two additional articles proposed by the Bri- 
tish plenipotentiaries was included amongst, or is connected with, 
the subjects previously brought forward by them, it is presumed 
they are offered only for consideration, as embracing objects of 
common and equal interest to both parties. The undersigned will 
accede to the substance of the article to promote the abolition of 
the slave trade. They cannot admit the other article, which to 
them, appears unnecessary. The courts of the United States will, 
without it, be equally open to the claims of British subjects ; and 
they rely that, without it, the British courts will be equally open to 
the claims of the citizens of the United States. 



50 

The undersigned renew to the British plenipotentiaries the as- 
surance of their high consideration. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 
JAMES A. BAYARD, 
HENRY CLAY, 
JONATHAN RUSSELL, 
ALBERT GALLATIN. 
To the PlenipoteHtiaries of his Britannic 

majesty, &c. &c. &t. 



Such of the islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed 
by both parties, shall remain in the possession of the party in whose 
occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the ratifica- 
tions of this treaty, until the decision respecting the title to the said 
islands shall have been made, in conformity with the 4th article of 
this treaty. But if such decision shall not have taken place within 
years after the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, 
such islands shall be restored to, and until such decision may take 
place, shall be retained by, the party who had possession of the 
same at the commencement of the war. No disposition made by 
this treaty of the intermediate possession of the islands and territo- 
ries, claimed by both parties, shall, in any manner whatever, be 
construed to afl'ect the right of either. 

British Note I\'o. 10, in answer to American JVo. 8. 

The undersigned have had the honour to receive the note of the 
American plenipotentiaries, dated on the 14th instant, stating their 
consent to except the Passamaquoddy Islands from the mutual re- 
stitution of territory captured during the war, provided the claim of 
the United States shall not be in any manner alTected thereby. To 
the article proposed by the American plenipotentiaries, so far as it 
is adapted to this object, the undersigned are willing to agree ; but 
they object, as before intimated by them, to that part of the pro- 
posed article which would make it imperative on the commission- 
ers to decide the question within any fixed time, trusting that on 
this head the American plenipotentiaries will be satisfied with their 
declaration, that it is the intention of his majesty's government to do 
all that belongs to them to obtain a decision without loss of time. 
The project of the article subjoined, will be found to omit the clause 
intended to enforce a decision within some limited time, and to con- 
tain a slight alteration in the third clause, by substituting in the 
place of the words " intermediate possession," the words, " as to 
such possession." 

0:5- [So far as regards the substitution proposed by the undersign- 
ed, for the last clause of the 8th article, as it was offered solely with 
the hope of attaining the object of the amendment tendered by the 
American plenipotentiaries at the conference of the 1st instant, no 



51 

difficulty will be made in withdrawing it. The undersigned, re » 
ferring to the declaration made by them at the conference of the 
8th of August, that the privileges of fishing within the limits of the 
British sovereignty, and of using the British territories for purposes 
connected with the fisheries, were what Great Britain did not in- 
tend to grant without equivalent, are not desirous of introducing 
any article upon the subject. With the view of removing what 
they consider as the only objection to the immediate conclusion of 
the treaty, the undersigned agree to adopt the proposal made by 
the American plenipotentiaries, made at the conference of the 1st 
instant, and repeated in their last note, of omitting the 8th article 
altogether.] 

The undersigned avail themselves of this opportunity to renew 
to the plenipotentiaries of the United States, the assurance of their 
high consideration. 

GAMBIER, 

HENKY GOULDBURN, 
WILLIAM ADAMS. 
Client, December 22, 1814. 

Accompanying British JVbie JVo. 10. 

Such of the islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed 
by both parties, shall remain in the possession of the pi^rty in whose 
occupation they maybe at the time of the exchange of the ratifica- 
tions of this treaty, until the decision respecting the title to the 

said islands shall have been made in conformity with the ■ 

article of this treaty. 

No disposition made by this treaty, as to such possession of the 
islands and territories claimed by both parties, shall, in any manper 
whatever, be construed to affect the rigbt of either. 



Protocol of Conference. 

Ghent, 23d December, ISl*. 

At a conference held this day, the protocol of the preceding con- 
ference was settled. 

The American plenipotentiaries intimated their readiness to ac- 
cede to the propositions contained in the note of the British pleni- 
potentiaries, of the 22d instant. 

The following alterations were then agreed to : 

In the first article, after the word •' cease," omit the words " af- 
ter the exchange of the ratifications," and insert " as soon as the 
treaty shall have been ratified by both parties." Substitute the 
word " whatsoever" for the words '' without exception." Restore 
the words " taken by either party from the other," in the room of 
the words " belonging to either party and taken by." After the 
words " signing of this treaty," insert the words " excepting only 
the islands hereinafter mentioned." After the words "respectiyelv 



6i 

belong," insert, verbatim, the words of the amendment inclosed in 
the note of the British plenipotentiaries of the 22d instant, filling up 
the blank with the word "fourth." 

2d article. The second article was altered so as to read as fol- 
lows ; 

Article II. Immediately after the ratification of this treaty by 
both parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the 
armies, squadrons, officers, subjects, and citizens, of the two pow- 
ers, to cease from all hostilities; and to prevent all cau.«es of com- 
plaint, which might arise on account of the prizes which may be 
taken at sea after the said ratifications of this treaty, it is recipro- 
cally agreed, that all vessels and effects which may be taken after 
the space of twelve days from the said ratifications, upon all parts 
of the coast of North America, from the latitude of twenty-three 
degrees north to the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far east- 
ward in the Atlantic ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west longi- 
tude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on each 
side ; that the time shall be thirty days in all other parts of the 
Atlantic ocean north of the equinoctial line or equator ; and the 
same time for the British and Irish Channels, for the Gulf of Mexico, 
and all parts of the West Indies ; forty days for the North Seas, 
for the Baltic, and for all other parts of the Mediterranean ; sixty 
days for the Atlantic ocean, south of the equator, as far as the 
latitude of the Cape of Good Hope ; ninety days for every other 
part of the world south of the equator, and one hundred and twenty 
days for all other parts of the world without exception. 

It was agreed that the article respecting prisoners' of war should 
be the third article, and that the words " as hereinafter mention- 
ed," should be substituted for the words, " shall have been ex- 
•:hanged." 

The articles numbered in the original project 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, to be 
respectivisly numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 

In the 4th article, it was agreed that the blank should be filled 
up with the words " St. Andrews, in the province of New-Bruns- 
wick." 

In the 5th article, it was agreed that the blank should be filled 
up with the words "St. Andrews, in the province of New-Bruns- 
wick." 

Near the end of the 5th article, substitute the word " fourth" 
for " third." 

In the 6th article, it was agreed to fill up the blank with the 
words "Albany, in the State of New-York," and to substitute the 
word " fouith" for " third," in the concluding paragraph. 

In the 7th article, substitute the word " fourth" for " third," in 
the last paragraph. 

It was agreed that the article respecting the African slave trade 
should be the lOth article, and that the words " use their best en- 
deavours," should be substituted for the words •* exert every 
means in their power." 



53 

The 15th article of the project to be numbered 11; it was 
agreed to insert in it, after the words " on both sides," the words 
*' without alteration by either of the contracting parties." 

Omit the words *' with all practicable despatch." Fill up the 
blank with the word " four." Insert after the word "done," the 
words " in triplicate." The British plenipotentiaries urged the 
article formerly proposed by them, as to suits of law to be prose- 
cuted by the citizens or subjects of one nation in the courts of 
justice of the other. Resisted by the American plenipotentia- 
ries. 

The conference was adjourned to the 24th inst. for the purpose 
of signing the treaty. 



The American Plenipotentiaries to the Secretary of State. 

Ghewt, 25th December, 18l4. 

Sir : We have the honour of transmitting herewith, one of the 
ihiee copies of the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the 
United States, signed last eveaing by the plenipotentiaries of his 
Britannic majesty and by us. 

The papers, of which copies are likewise now forwarded, will 
exhibit to you so fully the progress of the negotiation since the 
departure of the Chauncey, that few additional remarks from us 
will be necessary. It may be proper for us, however, to state, 
that in the in^ral between the time when our first project of a 
treaty was sentto^e British plenipotentiaries, and that when they 
communicated to us \he answer to it, the despatches which we 
had sent by Mr. Dallas, and the instructions to us, which had been 
published in the United States, were republished in England. 

la declining to insist on the articles respecting impressment and 
indemnities, we made a formal declaration, that the rights of both 
parties, on the subject of seamen and the claims to indemnities for 
losses and damages sustained prior to the commencement of the 
war, should not be aflfected or impaired by the omission, in the 
treaty, of a specific provision on these two subjects. 

From the time when the project of the treaty, presented by us, 
was returned, with the proposed alterations, it was apparent, that 
unless new pretensions on the part of Great Britain should be ad- 
vanced, the only important diflerences remaining to be discussed, 
were those relating to the mutual restoration of territory, taken 
during the war ; to the navigation of the Mississippi by British 
subjects, and to the right of the people of the United States to the 
fisheries within the British jurisdiction. Instead of a general res- 
titution of captured territory, which we had proposed, the British 
government, at first, wished to confine it to the territory taken by 
either party belonging to the other. On our objecting, that this 
would make each party the judge, whether territory taken did or 
did not belong to the other, and thereby oocasion new disputes, 



64 

lliey acknowletlged it to be their object, that each party shcuifd, 
until a decision had taken place with respect to the title, retain 
possession of all the territory claimed by both parties, which might 
have been taken by such party during the war. They proposed, 
however, to limit the exception from mutual restitution, to the is- 
lands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy. As it had beeB, on both sides, 
admitted, that the title to these islands was disputed, and as the 
method of settling amicably those disputes was provided for in the 
treaty, we had not expected that the British government would ad-- 
here to the demand of retaining the temporary possession of those 
islands. We insisted, therefore, on their being included in the 
general restoration, until we had reason to believe that our further 
perseverance would have hazarded the conclusion of the peace 
itself; we finally consented, as an alternative preferable to the 
continuance of the war, to this exception, upon condition that it 
should not be understood as impairing, in any manner, the right of 
the United States to these islands. We also urged for a stipulation, 
requiring an ultimate decision upon the title within a limited time ; 
but to this we also found opposed an insuperable objection, and we 
were finally induced to accept, in its stead, a declaration of the 
British plenipotentiaries that no unnecessary delay of the decision 
should be interposed on the part of Great Britain. 

At the first conference on the 8th of August, the British pleni- 
potentiaries had notified to us, that the British government did not 
intend, henceforth, to allow to the people of the United States, 
without an equivalent, the liberties to fish, and to dry and cure 
fish, within the exclusive British jurisdiction, stipulated in their 
favour, by the latter part of the third article of the treaty of peace 
of 1783. And, in their note of the 19th of August, the British 
plenipotentiaries had demanded a new stipulation to secure tO' 
British subjects the right of navigating the Mississippi : a demand, 
which, unless warranted by another article of that same treaty of 
1783, we could not perceive that Great Britain had any colourable 
pretence for making. Our instructions had forbidden us to suffer 
our right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion, and had not 
authorized us to make any distinction in the several provisions of 
the third article of the treaty of 1783, or between that article and 
any other of the same treaty. We had no equivalent to offer for a 
new recognition of our right to any part of the fisheries, and we 
had no power to grant any equivalent which might be asked for it 
by the British government. We contended that the whole treaty 
of 1783, must be considered as one entire and permanent compact^ 
not liable, like ordinary treaties, to be abrogated by a subsequent 
war between the parties to it ; as an instrument recognising the 
rights and liberties enjoyed by the people of the United States as 
an independent nation, and containing the terms and conditions on 
which the two parts of one empire had mutually agreed thence* 
forth to constitute two distinct and separate nations. In consent- 
ing, by that treaty, that a part of the North American continent 



S.5 

sliDuld remain isubject to the British jurisdiction, the people of the 
United States had reserved to themselves the liberty, which they 
had ever before enjoyed, of tishing upon that part of the coasts, 
and of drying and curing fish upon the shores ; and this reserva- 
tion had been agreed to by the other contracting party. We saw 
not why this liberty, then no new grant, but a mere recognition of 
a prior right, always enjoyed, should be forfeited by a war, any 
more than any other of the rights of our national independence, 
or why we should need a new stipulation for its enjoyment more 
than we needed a new article to declare that the king of Great 
Britain treated with us as free, sovereign, and independent states. 
We stated this principle, in general terms, to the British plenipo- 
tentiaries, in the note which we sent to them with our project of 
the treaty ; and we alleged it as the ground upon which no new 
stipulation was deemed by our government necessary to secure to 
the people of the United States all the rights and liberties, stipu- 
lated in their favour, by the treaty of 1783. No reply to that part 
of our note was given by the British plenipotentiaries ; but, in re- 
turning our project of a treaty, they added a clause to one of the 
articles, stipulating a right for British subjects to navigate the Mis- 
sissippi. Without adverting to the ground of prior and immemorial 
usage, if the principle were just that the treaty of 1783, from its 
peculiar character, remained in torce in all its parts, notwithstand- 
ing the war, no new stipulation was necessary to secure to the sub- 
jects of Great Britain the right of navigating the Mississippi, as far 
as that right was secured by the treaty of 1783 ; as, on the other 
hand, no stipulation was necessary to secure to the people of the 
United States the liberty to fish, and to dry and cure tish, within the 
exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. If they asked the naviga- 
tion of the Mississippi as a new claim, they could not expect we 
should grant it without an equivalent : if they asked it because it 
had been granted in 1783, they must recognise the claim of the 
people of the United States to the liberty to iish and to dry and cure 
tish, in question. To place both points beyond all future contro- 
versy, a majority of us determined to o tier to admit an article con- 
firming both rights : or, we offered at the same time, to be silent 
in the treaty upon both, and to leave out altogether the article de- 
fining the boundary from the Lake of the Woods westward. They 
finally agreed to this last propos.al, but not until they had proposed 
an article stipulating for a future negotiation for an equivalent to be 
given by Great Britain for the navigation of the Mississippi, and by 
the United States for the liberty as to the fisheries within the Bri- 
tish jurisdiction. This article was unnecessary, with respect to 
its professed object, since both governments had it in their power, 
without it, to negotiate upon these subjects if they pleased. We 
rejected it, although its adoption would have secured the boun- 
dary of the 49th degree of latitude west of the Lake of the Woods, 
igiecause it would have been a formal abandonment, on our part, of 



1)6 

our claim to tbe liberty as to the fisheries, recognised by the trea* 
ty of 1783. 

You will perceive by the correspondence that the 9th article 
was offered us as a sine qua non and an ultimatum. We accepted 
it, not without much hesitation, as the only alternative to a rup- 
ture of the negotiation, and with a perfect understanding that bur 
government was free to reject it, as we were not authorized to sub- 
scribe to it. 

To guard against any accident which might happen in the trans- 
mission of a single copy of the treaty to the United States, the Bri- 
tish plenipotentiaries have consented (o execute it in triplicate : 
and as the treaty with the British ratification may be exposed to the 
same danger, the times for the cessation of hostilities, the restora- 
tion of captures at sea, and the release of prisoners, have been fixed, 
not from the exchange of ratifications, but from the ratification on 
both sides, without alteration by either of the contractmg parties. 
We consented to the introduction of this latter provision, at the 
desire of the British plenipotentiaries, who were willing to take a 
full, but were unwilling to incur the risk of a partial ratification, as 
the period from which thepeace should be considered as concluded. 
We are informed by them that Mr. Baker, their secretary, is to 
go out to America with the British ratification. 

We have the honour to be, very respectfully, sir, your most 
humble and obedient servants, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 
J. A. BAYARD, 
HENRY CLAY, 
JONATHAN RUSSELL, 
ALBERT GALLATIN. 



Extract of a letter from Jonathan Russell, esq. to the Secretary of 
StatCy dated Ghent, 25th December, 1814. 

" My necessary occupation, at this moment, in aiding my col- 
leagues to prepare our joint despatches, puts it out of my power to 
furnish you with any details or observations exclusively my own. 

'* As, however, you will perceive by our despatch to you of this 
date, that a majority only of the mission was in favour of offerino- 
to the British plenipotentiaries, an article confirming the British 
right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and ours to the liberty as 
to the fisheries, it becomes me, in candour, to acknowledge, that I 
was in the minority on that question. I must reserve to myself 
the power of communicating to you, hereafter, the reasons which 
influenced me to differ fiom a majority of my colleagues on that 
occasion ; and if they be insufficient to support my opinion, I per- 
suade myself they will, at least, vindicate my motives." 



57 

Mr. CraUati7i to the Secretary of S,iate. 

Ghent, 25th December, 1814= 
Sih : The treaty which we signed yesterday, with the British 
ministers, is, in my opinion, as favourable as could be expected, 
under existing circumstances, so far as they were known to us. — 
The attitude taken by the State of Massachusetts, and the appear- 
ances in some of the neighbouring States, had a most unfavourable 
effect. Of the probable result of the Congress at Vienna, we had 
no correct information. The views of all the European powers 
were precisely known, from day to day, to the British ministry. 
From neither of them did we, in any shape, receive any intimation 
of their intentions, of the general prospect of Europe, or of the 
interest they took in our contest with Great Britain. I have some 
reason to believe that all of them were desirous that it might conti- 
nue. They did not intend to assist us ; they appeared indifferent 
about our difficulties, but they rejoiced at any thing which might 
occupy, and eventually weaken our enemy. The manner in which 
the campaign has terminated ; the evidence afforded, by its events, 
of our ability to resist, alone, the now very formidable military 
power of England ; and our having been able, without any foreign 
assistance, and after she had made such an effort, to obtain peace 
on equal terms, will raise our character and consequence in Eu- 
rope. This, joined with the naval victories, and the belief that 
we alone can fight the English on their element, will make us to be 
courted as much as we have been neglected by foreign govern- 
ments. As to the people of Europe, public opinion was already 
most decidedly in our favour. I anticipate a settlement with Spain 
on our own terms, and the immediate chastisement of the Alge- 
rines. Permit me to suggest the propriety of despatching a squad- 
ron for that purpose, without losing a single moment. 

I have little to add to our public despatch on the subject of the 
terms of the treaty, I really think, that there is nothing but nomi- 
nal in the Indian article, as adopted. With respect to preceden', 
you will find two, though neither is altogether in point, viz. the 
— ' — article of the treaty of Utrecht, and the latter part of the 

article of our treaty with Spain. You know, that there was 

no alternative between breaking off the negotiations, and accepting 
the article ; and that we accepted it, only as provisional, and sub- 
ject to your approbation or rejection. 

The exception of Moose Island, from the general restoration of 
territory, is the only point on which it is possible that we might 
have obtained an alteration, if we had adhered to our opposition 
to it. The British government had long fluctuated on the question 
of peace : a favourable account from Vienna, the report of some 
success in the Gulf of Mexico, or any other incident, might pro- 
duce a change in their disposition ; they had, already, after the 
question had been referred to them, declared that they could not 
consent to a relinquishment of that point. We thought it too ha- 



58 

i5ar(3ou9 to risk the peace on the question of the temporary posses- 
sion of that small island, since the question of title was fully re- 
served ; and it was, therefore, no cession of territory. 

On the subject of the fisheries, within the jurisdiction of Great 
Britain, we have certainly done all that could be done. If, accord- 
ing to the construction of the treaty of 1783, which we assumed, 
the right was not abrogated by the war, it remains entire, since we 
most explicitly refused to renounce it, either directly or indirectly. 
In that case, it is only an unsettled subject of difference between 
the two countries. If the right must be considered as abrogated by 
the war, we cannot regain it without an equivalent. We had none 
to give but the recognition of their right to navigate the Mississippi, 
and we otfered it. On this last supposition, this right is also lost 
to them ; and, in a general point of view, we have certainly lost 
nothing. But we have done all tiiat was practicable in support of 
the right to tho^e fisheries — 1st, by the ground we assumed, re- 
specting the construction of the treaty of 1783 — 2d, by the offer to 
recognise the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi — 
3dly, by refusing to accept from Great Britain both her implied re- 
nunciation of the right of that navigation, and the convenient bound- 
ary of 4.9 degrees, for the whole extent of our and her territories, 
west of the Lake of the Woods, rather than to make an implied 
renunciation, on our part, to the right of America to those particu- 
lar fisheries. 

I believe that Great Britain is very desirous of obtaining the 
northern part of Maine, say from about 47 degrees north latitude, 
to the northern extremity of that district, as claimed by us. They 
hope that the river, which empties into the Bay des Chaleurs, in 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence, has its source so far west as to intervene 
between the head waters of the river St. John's, and those of the 
streams emptying into the river St. Lawrence ; so that the line north 
from the source of the river St. Croix will first strike the heights 
o^ land which divide the waters emptying into the Atlantic Ocean 
(river St. John's) from those emptying into the Gulf of St. Law- 
rence, (river des Chaleurs,) and afterwards the heights of land 
which divide the waters emptying into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 
(river des Chaleurs,) from those emptying into the river St. Law- 
rence ; but, that the said line never can, in the words of the treaty, 
strike any spot of land actually dividing the waters emptying into 
ihe Atlantic ocean, from those which fa'U into the river St. Law- 
rence. Such will be the foundation of their disputing our claim 
to the northern part of that territoi-y ; biit, feeling that it is not 
very sohd, I am apt to think that they will be disposed to offer the 
whole of Passamaquoddy bay, and the disputed fisheries, as an 
equivalent for the portion of northern territory, which they want, 
in order to connect New-Brunswick and Quebec. This may ac- 
count for their tenacity with respect to the temporary possession 
of Moose Island, and for their refusing to accept the recognition of 
their right to the navigation of the xMississippi, provided they re-: 
cpgnise ours to the fisheries. 



5.9 

That northern territory is of no importance to us, and belongs to 
the United States, and not to Massachusetts, which has not the sha- 
dow of a claim to any land north of 45 degrees, to the eastward of 
the Penobscot river, as you may easily convince yourself of, by re- 
curring to her charters. 

I have the honour to be, with respect, &c. 

ALBERT GALLATIN. 

Thp Hon. the Secretary of State 

of the United Slates, Washington. 



Extract from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. 

APRIL 18, 1822. 

Mr. Floyd submitted the following resolution, viz : 

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to 
be communicated to this House, if not injurious to the public good, any letter 
or communication which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, Es- 
quire, one of the Ministers of the United States who concluded the Treaty of 
Ghent, after the signature of that Treaty, and which was written in conform- 
ity to the indications contained in said Minister's letter, dated at Ghent, 25th 
December, 1814, 

The said resolution was read and ordered to lie on the table one day. 

APRIL 19, 1822. 

The resolution submitted by Mr. Floyd, on yesterday, was taken up, read, 
and agreed to by the House. 



MESSAGE from the President of the United States, to the House 
of Representatives, of 4th May, 1822, in answer to their Resolu- 
tion of 19th April, 1822. 

To the House of Representatives of the United States : 

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives, 
of the 19th of April, requesting the President "to cause to be 
communicated to the House, if not injurious to the public interest, 
any letter which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, 
one of the Ministers who concluded the treaty of Ghent, in conform- 
ity with the indications contained in his letter of 25th of December, 
1814," I have to state, that, having referred the resolution to the 
Secretary of State, and it appearing, by a report from him, that no 
such document had been deposited among the archives of the De- 
partment, I examined and found among my private papers a letter 
of that description, marked "private" by himself. I transmit a 
copy of the report of the Secretary of State, by which it appears 
that Mr. Russell, on being apprized that the document referred to 
by the resolution had not been deposited in the Department of State,, 



60 

delivered there '' a paper purporting to be the duplicate of a letter 
written by him from Paris, on the 11th of February, 1815, to the 
then Secretar}' of State, to be communicated to the House, as the 
letter called for by the resolution." 

On the perusal of the document called for, I find that it commu- 
nicates a difference of opinion between Mr. Russell and a majority 
of his colleagues, in certain transactions which occurred in the ne- 
gotiations at Ghent, touching interests which have been since satis- 
factorily adjusted by treaty between the United Slates and Great 
Britain. The view which Mr. Russell presents of his own con- 
duct, and that of his colleagues, in those transactions, will, it is 
presumed, call from the two surviving members of that mission, 
who differed from him, a reply, containing their view of those 
transactions, and of the conduct of the parties in them, and who, 
should his letter be communicated to the House of Representatives, 
will also claim that their reply should be communicated in like man- 
ner by the Executive — a claim which, on the principle of equal 
justice, could not be resisted. The Secretary of State, one of the 
Ministers referred to, has already expressed a desire that Mr. Rus- 
sell's letter should be communicated, and thatl would transmit, at 
the same time, a communication from him respecting it. 

On full consideration of the subject, I have thought it would be 
improper for the Executive to communicate the letter called for, 
unless the House, on a knowledge of these circumstances, should 
desire it ; in which case the document called for shall be commu- 
nicated, accompanied by a report from the Secretary of State, as 
above suggested. 1 have directed a copy to be delivered to Mr. 
Russell, to be disposed of as he may think proper, and have caused 
the original to be deposited in the Department of State, with in- 
struction to deliver a copy to any person who, may be interested. 

JAMES MONROE. 

Washingto.-!, May 4lli, 1822. 



Department of State, 

Washington, May 3, 1822. 

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of 
the House of Representatives of the 19th ultimo, requesting the 
President " to cause to be communicated to the House, if not inju- 
rious to the public good, any letter or communication which may 
have been received from Jonathan Russell,' Esquire, one of the 
Ministers of the United States who concluded the treaty of Ghent, 
after the signature of that treaty, and which was written in con- 
formity to the indications contained in said Minister's letter, dated 
at Ghent, 26th of December, 1814," has the honour of reporting 
to the President, that, until after the adoption of the said resolution 
by the House, there was upon the tiles of the Department of State,. 
no letter from Mr. Russell, of the description mentioned therein ; 



61 

but that Mr. Russell himself has since delivered at the Depart- 
ment, a communication purporting to be the duplicate of a letter 
written by him from Paris, on the llth of February, 1815, to the 
then Secretary of State, to be communicated to the House, as the 
letter called for by their resolution. 

A copy of this paper is herewith submitted to the President. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

Extract fro7n the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. 
MAY 6th, 1822. 

Mr. Fuller submitted the following resolution, to wit : 

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to commu- 
nicate to this House the letter of Jonathan Russell, esquire, referred to in his 
message of the 4th of May, instant; together with such communications as he 
may have received relative thereto, from any of the other ministers of the 
United States "who negotiated the treaty of Ghent. 

The said resolution was received by unanimous consent of the House, read, 
and ordered to lie on the table one day. 

MAT 7th, 1822. 

The House took up and proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by 
Mr. Fuller, yesterday, and the same being read, 

Mr. McCarty moved that it lie on the table ; which, being disagreed to. 
The question was taken on agreeing to the resolution, 
And passed in the affirmative. 

Extract from the J^ational Intelligencer of 13 th June, 1822. 
CONGRESSIONAL. 

[It is one of the most vexatious incidents that has ever occurred to us, of 
lesser importance, that we mislaid our notes of the proceedings which took 
place in the House of Representatives on the 7th May last, on Mr. Fuller's 
motion, respecting Mr. Russell's letter, and on the bill authorizing the change 
of the site of the canal in this city, both of which debates we hoped to have 
published. We have the more reason to regret the circumstance, because a 
curiosity has been expressed to see what was said on Mi. Fuller's motion. A 
friend, who attended to what passed, has furnished us, from memory, with the 
following sketch of the proceedings on that occasion. It is brief, but is believed 
to be substantially correct.] 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES — 7th May, 1822. 

Mr. Fuller's resolution, which was submitted yesterday, request- 
ing the President to communicate the letter of Jonathan Russell, 
esq. relating to the treaty of Ghent, together with such communi- 
cations as had been received from the other plenipotentiaries, or 
either of them, in explanation of the letter of Mr. R. was called 
up, and, on the question of its adoption—- 

Mr. Floyd said, he had moved the original resolution for the 
Ghent correspondence, with an expectation that it might throw 
some light on the importance of the Columbia river, and the bill 
before the House proposing an establishment there. As the Pre- 
sident, however, had not thought proper to communicate the letter 
in question, wheo specially galled for, he (Mr. F.) had moved to 

8 



&2 

have the message committed to a committee of which he was a 
member, but the motion had not prevailed. He had, however, 
hoped, since he had desisted from again requesting the letter, that 
no other gentleman would have proposed it. It was manifest that 
it had been withheld to prevent the excitement and ill blood which 
the contents might produce. He hoped the resolution would not 
be adopted. 

Mr. Fuller said, he was happy to hear from the gentleman from 
Virginia, that he had been induced to abstain from a further, call 
for Mr. R's letter to prevent the excitement of "ill blood," and he 
would by no means be behind him, (Mr. Floyd,) in such a laud- 
able intent ; but, in his opinion, the communication of the letter, 
and of the explanation of the other commissionerR, to Congress 
and to the public, would have a far greater tendency to allay the 
ill blood, if any existed, than the suppression of the explanation, 
while the letter was in effect made public. The President's mes- 
sage informed us, Mr. Fuller said, that he had transmitted the letter 
to the Department of State, and directed copies of it to be delivered 
to persons who should apply ; consequently, it would soon reach 
the newspapers, while the comments or explanations which ought 
to accompany it would be effectually suppressed. Nothing, in his 
opinion, could be more unfair than thus to stifle all reply. It re- 
minded him, he said, of what he had of late frequently witnessed 
in this House, when some bill was pending, and, before it was un- 
derstood, one of its opposers would make a speech against it, and 
conclude with a motion to lay it on the table, which precluded all 
debate, and, consequently, all explanation. The indignation pro- 
duced by such a course every gentleman must have observed and 
sometimes have felt. There was nothing so safe and honourable 
as a full disclosure of the statements of both sides. He regretted, 
he said, that his colleague, the writer of the letter, was not in his 
seat, as he was sure he could not object to the call, more especially 
as it appeared from the message, that the gentleman himself had 
furnished to the Department a duplicate or copy of that letter to 
be communicated to Congress before the original had been found. 
As to the suggestion that the Ghent correspondence or the letter 
in question could throw a single ray of light on the subject of the 
occupation of Columbia river, it was too improbable, Mr. Fuller said, 
to have ever entered his mind ; but if the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Floyd) had expected it at tirst, he could see no reason for 
bis giving over the pursuit. He hoped the House would see the 
obvious justice of adopting the resolution. 

Mr. Cocke said, he could see no reason for calling for the letter; 
the President had declined communicating it, and, therefore, he 
thought it not proper in the Flouse to persist in the call. 

Mr. Sergeant said, he rose to correct the error into which the 
gentleman from Tennessee ( VI r. Cocke) had fallen, in supposing 
the President had " declined" communicating Mr Kussell's letter. 
It appeared, on recurring to the message, (a part of which Mr. S. 



63 

read,) that he merely declined sending the letter, without also 
sending such answer or explanation as the majorit)/ of the commis- 
sioners who negotiated the treaty, or any of them, should request. 
On the other hand, the President signities his willingness to com- 
municate both together ; and Mr. S. said, he could see no objec- 
tion whatever to the resolution, which seemed, under existing 
circumstances, to ask no more than was due to the survivers of the 
commissioners, whose conduct was implicated, and who had aright 
to be heard. 

Mr. Cocke, after hearing the message read, the terms of which, 
he said, he had not before so particularly attended to, withdrew 
his opposition. 

Mr. Hardin said, he was glad the letter was called for, and he 
should vote for the resolution, as it would show the western peo- 
ple in what manner their interests were disregarded or sacriticed ; 
that the commissioners offered to give up the navigation of the Mis- 
sissippi to secure the fisheries of the east. 

The resolution was then adopted with only one or two voices in 
the negative. 



MESSAGE from the President of the United States, trmismilting (pursuant to 
a resolution of the House of Representatives, of 1th Maij,) a Letter of Jona- 
than Russell, late one of the Plenipotentiaries of the United States, at the 
negotiation of Ghent, with Remarks thereon, by the Secretary oj State, 

To the House of Representatives : 

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representa- 
tives of the 7th of May, requestmg the President of the United 
States " to communicate to that House the letter of Jonathan Rus- 
sell, esq. referred to in his message of the 4th instant, together 
with such communications as he may have received relative there- 
to, from any of the other ministers of the United States who ne- 
gotiated the treaty of Ghent," I herewith transmit a report from 
the Secretary of State, with the documents called for by that reso- 
lution. JAMES MONROE. 

Washington, May 7, 1822. 



Department of State, 

Washington, 7th May, 1822. 

The Secretary of State has the honour of transmitting to the 
President of the United States his remarks upon the paper depo- 
sited at the Department of State on the 22d of last month, by 
.Tonathan Russell, late one of the plenipotentiaries of the United 
States, at the negotiation of Ghent, to be communicated to the 
House of Representatives, as the letter called lor by their resolu- 
tion of the 19th of that month ; and the Secretary of State respect- 
fully requests that the President would transmit to the House of 
Representatives these Remarks, together with the above mentioned 
communication of Mr. Russell, on the renewal of the call therefor 
by the House, JOHN QUINCY AUAMS. 



64 



Mr. liunelL to the Secrclanj of State 

« 

(private.) 

Paris, lltb February, 1815. 

Sir : In conformity with the intimation contained in my letter ol' 
the (1) 25tli of December, I (2) now have the honour to state to you the 
i-e;isons which induced me to difi'er fVom a majority of my col- 
leagues on the expediency of offering an article confirming the 
British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the right of the 
American people to take and cure fish in certain places within the 
British jurisdiction. 

The (3) proposition of such an article appeared to be inconsistent 
with our reasoning to prove its absolute inutility. According to 
this reasoning no new stipulation was any more necessary, on the 
subject of such an article, than anew stipulation for ihe recognition 
of the sovereignty and independence of the United States. 

The article proposed appeared also to be inconsistent with our 
instructions, as (4) interpreted by us, which forbid us to suffer (5j ouv 
right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion ; for, it could not be 
believed that we were left tree to (6) stipulate on a subject which 
Ave were restrained from (7) discussing, and that an (8) argument, 
and not an (9) agreement, was to be avoided. If our construction 
was indeed correct, it might not, perhaps, be difficult to show that 
we have not, in fact, completely refrained from the interdicted dis- 
cussion. 

At any rate, the proposal of the article in question was objection- 
able, inasmuch as it was incompatible with the principles asserted 
by a majority of the mission, and with the construction which 
(10) this majority had adopted on that part of our instructions which 
related to the fisheries. If the majority were correct in these 
principles, and in this construction, it became us to act accordingly ; 
if they were ill) not corre«t, still it was unnecessary to add inconsist- 
ency to error. 

I freely confess, however, that I did not accord with the majori- 
ty, either in their view of the treaty of 1783, whence they derived 
their principles, or of our instructions ; and that my great objection 
to proposing the article did not arise from an anxiety to reconcile 
our conduct with our reasoning and declarations. 



65 



* [duplicate.] 

Paris, 11th February, 1822.1 

Sir : In conformity with the intimation contained in my letter oi' 
the (1) 25th December, I (2) have now the honour to state to you the 
reasons which induced me to dift'er from a majority of my col- 
leagues on the expediency of offering an article confirming the 
British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the right of 
the American people to take and cure tish in certain places within 
the British jurisdiction. 

The (3) proposal of such an article appeared to be inconsistent 
with our reasoning to prove its absolute inutility. 

According to this reasoning, no new stipulation was any more 
necessary, on the subject of such an article, than a new stipulation 
for the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the 
United States. 

The article proposed appeared, also, to be inconsistent with our 
instructions, as (4) interpreted by us, which forbid us to suffer (5) our 
right to the fisheries, to be brought into discussion ; for, it could not 
be believed that we were left free to (6) stipulate on a subject 
which we were restrained from (7) discussing, and that an (8) argu- 
ment, and not an (9) agreement, was to be avoided. If our con- 
struction was, indeed, correct, it might not, perhaps, be difficult to 
show that we have not, in fact, completely refrained from the in- 
terdicted discussion. 

At any rate, the proposal of the article in question was objec- 
tionable, inasmuch as it was incompatible with the principles as- 
serted by a majority of the mission, and with the construction which 
(10) that majority had adopted on that part of our instructions 
which related to the fisheries. If the majority were correct in 
these principles, and in this construction, it became us to act ac- 
cordingly. If they were (U) incorrect, still it was unnecessary to 
add inconsistency to error. 

I freely confess, however, that I did not accord with the majori- 
ty, either in their views of the treaty of 1783, whence they derived 
their principles, nor of our instructions ; and that my great objec- 
tion to proposing the article did not arise from an anxiety to re- 
concile our conduct with our reasoning and declarations. 

* The word (Copy) had here been written by Mr. Russell, and erased. The 
traces of it are visible on the paper. 

+ JVo<e on the date of the Duplicate. This was the date of the paper as deli- 
vered by Mr. Russell on the 22d of April, 1822, at the Department of State. It 
was afterwards altered to 1815, with his approbation, and before it was com- 
municated to the House, as will he seen in the sequel, 



(jg [I'RIVATE.^ 

I could not believe that the independence of the United States 
was derived from the treaty of 1783 ; that the recognition of that 
independence, by Great Britain, gave to this treaty any peculiar 
character, or that such character, supposing it existed, would ne- 
cessarily render this treaty absolutely inseparable in its provisions, 
and make it one entire and indivisible whole, equally imperishable 
in all its parts, by any change which might occur in the relations 
between the contracting parties. 

The independence of the United States rests upon those funda- 
mental principles set forth and acted on by the American Congress, 
in the declaration of July, 1776, and not on any British (12) grant 
in the treaty of 1783, and its era is dated accordingly. 

The treaty of 1783 was merely a (13) treaty of peace, and there-r 
lore subject to the same rules of construction as all other compacts 
of this nature. The recognition of the independence of the United 
States could not (14) well have given to it a peculiar character, and 
excepted it from the operation of these rules. Such a recognition, 
expressed or implied, is always indispensable on the part of every 
nation with whom we form any treaty (15) whatsoever. France, in 
the treaty of alliance, long before the year l?83,not only expressly 
recognised, but engaged (16) effectually to maintain, this independ- 
ence ; and yet this treaty, so (iir from being considered as possess- 
ing any mysterious peculiarity, by which its existence was perpe- 
tuated, has, even without war, and although apart of it contained 
words of (17) perpetuity, and was (18, unexecuted, long (I9j since en- 
tirely terminated. 

Had the recognition of our independence by Great Britain given 
lothe treaty of 1783 any peculiar character, which it did not, (20) 
still that character could have properly extended to those provi- 
sions only (21) which affected that independence. All those general 
rights, tor instance, of jurisdiction, which appertained to the Unit- 
ed States, in their quality as a nation, might, so far as that treaty 
was declaratory of them, have been embraced by (22) such pecu- 
liarity, without (23) necessarily extending its influence to mere 

(24) special commercial liberties and (25) privileges, or tO provisions 
(26) long since executed, not indispensably connected with national 
sovereignty, (27) or necessarily resulting from it 

The liberty to take and cure fish, within the exclusive (28) juris- 
diction of (29) Great Britain, vi'as certainly not necessary to perfect 
the (30) jurisdiction of the (31) United States ; and there is no reason 
to believe that such a liberty was intended to be raised to an equa- 
lity with the general right of fishing within the common jurisdic- 
tion of all nations, which accrued to us as a member of the great 
national family. On the contrary, the distinction between the spe- 
cial liberty and the general right appears to have been well under- 
stood by the American ministers who negotiated the treaty of 1783, 
and to have been clearly marked by the very import of the terms 
which they employed. It would evidently have been unwise in 
them, however ingenious it may be in us, to exalt such a privilege 



[duplicate.] 67 

I could not beliere that the independence of the United States 
was derived from the treaty of 1783 ; that the recognition of that 
independence, by Great Britain, gave to this treaty any peculiar 
character, or that such character, supposing it existed, would ne- 
cessarily render this treaty absolutely inseparable in its provisions, 
and make it one entire and indivisible whol(5, equally imperishable 
in all its parts, by any change which might occur in the relations 
between the contracting parties. 

The independence of the United States rests upon those funda- 
mental principles set forth and acted on by the American Congress, 
In the declaration of July, 177G, and not on any British (}2) grajit 
in the treaty of 1783 ; and its aera is dated accordingly. 

The treaty of 1783 was merely a (13) treaty of peace, and there- 
fore subject to the same rules of construction as all other compacts 
©t'this nature. The recognition of the independence of the United 
States could not (14) have well given to it a pecaliar character, and 
excepted it from the operation of these rules. Such a recognition, 
expressed or implied, is always indispensable on the part of every 
nation with whom we form any treaty (1^) whatever. France, in 
the treaty of alliance, long before the year 1783, not only express- 
ly recognised, but engaged {^<o) effectually to maintain this indepen- 
dence; and yet this treaty, so far from being considered as possess- 
ing any mysterious peculiarity by which its existence was perpe- 
tuated, has, even without war, and although a part of it contained 
words of (17) perpetuity and was (18) unexecuted long (19) since termi- 
nated. 

Had (he recognition of our independence by Great Britain given 
to the treaty of 1783 any peculiar character, which it did not, 
(20) yet that character could have properly extended to those pro- 
visions only (21) which affected, that independence. All those gene- 
ral rights, for instance, of jurisdiction, which appertained to the 
United States in their quality as a nation, might, so far as that treaty 
was declaratory of them, have been embraced by (22) that peculi- 
arity without (23) necessarily extending its influence to mere (24) 
ripec\?i\ liberties m\d (^o) privileges, or to provisions i^?-) long since ex- 
ecuted,) not mdispensably connected with national sovereignty, 
(27) nor necessarily resulting from it. 

The liberty to take and cure fish within the exclusive (2n) Jurist 
diction of (29) Great Britain, was certainly not necessary to perfect 
the (^30) jurisdiction of the (31) United States. And there is no reason 
to believe that such a liberty was intended to be raised to an equa- 
lity with the general right of tishing within the common jurisdiction 
of all nations, which accrued to us as a member of the great na- 
tional family. On the contrary, the distinction between the special 
liberty and the general right, appears to have been well under- 
stood by the American ministers who negotiated the treaty of 1783, 
and to have been clearly marked by the very import of the terms 
which they employed. It would evidently have been unwise in 
them, however iniienious it mav be in us. to exalt such a privilege 



68 [pRirATE.J 

to the rank of a sovereign right, and thereby to have assumed the 
unnecessary and inconvenient obhgation of considering such a liber- 
ty to be an indispensable condition of our national existence, and 
thus rendering that existence as precarious as the liberty itself. 
They could not have considered a privilege, which they expressly 
made to depend, to a very considerable extent, for its continuance, 
(32) on events and private interests, as partaking of the character 
and entitled to the duration of the inherent properties of sove- 
reignty. The settlement of the shores might, at any time, have 
been effected by the policy of the British government, and would 
have made the assent of British subjects, under the influence ot 
that policy, necessary to the continuance of a very considerable 
portion of that (33) liberty. They could not have meant thus to 
place, within the control of a foreign (34) government and its sub- 
jects, an (35) integral part, as we now affect to consider this privi- 
lege, of our national rights. 

It is from this view of the subject that I have been constrained 
to believe that there was nothing in the treaty of 1783, which 
could, essentially, distinguish it from ordinary treaties, or rescue it, 
on account of any peculiarity of character, from the jura belli, or 
from the operation of those events on which the (36) continuation 
or termination of such treaties depends, i was, in like manner, 
compelled to believe, if any such peculiarity belonged to those 
provisions, in that treaty, which had an immediate connexion with 
our independence, that it did not necessarily affect the nature of 
the whole treaty, (37) or attach to a privilege which had no analo- 
gy to such provisions, or any relation to that independence. 

I know not, indeed^ any treaty, or any article of a treaty, what- 
ever may have been the subject to which it related, or the terms in 
which it was expressed, that has survived a war between the par- 
ties, without being specially renewed, by reference or recitalj in 
the succeeding treaty of peace. I cannot, indeed, (38) conceive of th& 
possibiUty of such a treaty or such an article ; for, however clear 
and strong the stipulations for perpetuity might be, these stipula- 
tions themselves would follow the fate of ordinary unexecuted en- 
gagements, and require, after a war, the declared assent of the 'par- 
ties for their revival. 

We appear, in fact, not to have had an unqualified confidence in 
our construction of the treaty of 1783, or to have been willing to 
rest exclusively on its peculiar character our title to any of the 
rights mentioned in it, and much less our title to the fishing (39)liberty 
in question. If hostilities could not affect that treaty, (40) or abro- 
gate its provisions, why did we permit the boundaries assigned by 
it to be brought into discussion, or stipulate for a (41) restitution of all 
places taken from us during the present war? If such (42; restitution 
was secured by the mere operation of the treaty of 1783, why did 
we discover any solicitude for the status ante helium, and not resist 
the principle of uti possidetis on that ground ? 



[OUPLICATB.] 69 

to the rank of a sovereign right, and thereby to have assumed the 
unnecessary and inconvenient obligation of considering such a lib- 
erty to be an indispensable condition of our national existence, and 
thus rendering that existence as precarious as the liberty itself. 
They could not have considered a privilege which they ex- 
pressly made to depend, to a very considerable extent, for its con- 
tinuance, (32) on mere events and private interests, as partaking of 
the character, and entitled to the duration, of the inherent proper- 
ties of sovereignty. The settlement of the shores might, at any 
time, have been effected by the policy of the British government, 
and would have made the assent of British subjects under the influ- 
ence of that polfcy, necessary to the continuance of a very consi- 
derable portion of that (33) privilege. They could not have meant 
thus to place within the control of a foreign (34) power and its 
subjects, an (55) integral part, as we now affect to consider this pri- 
vilege, of our national rights. 

It is from this view of the subject that I have been constrained 
to believe that there was nothing in the treaty of 1783, which could 
essentially distinguish it from ordinary treaties, or rescue it, on 
account of any peculiarity of character, from the ^wra belli, or from 
the operation of those events on which the (36) continuance or ter« 
mination of such treaties depends. 

I was, in like manner, compelled to believe, if any such peculi- 
arity belonged to those provisions in that treaty, which had an im- 
mediate connection with our independence, that it did not necessa- 
rily affect the nature of the whole treaty, (37) nor attach to a privi- 
lege which had no analogy to such provisions, nor any relation to 
that independence. 

I know not, indeed, any treaty, nor any article of a treaty, what* 
ever may have been the subject to which it related, or the terms 
in which it was expressed, that has survived a war between the 
parties, without being specially renewed, by reference or recital, 
in the succeeding treaty of peace. I cannot, indeed, (38) conceive the 
possibility of such a treaty, or of such an article ; for, however 
clear and strong the stipulations for perpetuity might be, these 
stipulations themselves would follow the fate of ordinary unexecut- 
ed engagements, and require, after a war, the declared assent of 
the parties for their revival. 

We appear, in fact, not to have an unqualified confidence in our 
construction of the treaty of 1783, or to have been willing to rest 
exclusively on its peculiar character our title to any of the rights 
mentioned in it ; and much less our title to the fishing (39) privilege 
in question. 

If hostilities could not affect that treaty, (40) nor abrogate its pro- 
visions, why did we permit the boundaries assigned by it, to be 
brought into discussion, or stipulate for a (4^1) restoration of all places 
taken from us during the present war ? If such (42) a restitution was 
secured by the mere operation of the treaty of 1783, why did WQ 
discover any solicitude for the status ante bellum, and not resist thf 
principle of uti possidetis on that ground. 



70 [private."] 

Wilh regard to the fishing privilege, vve distinctly stated to you, 
in our letter of the (43)2ist of December, that, (44) "at the time of 
the treaty of 1783, it was (45) no new grant, we having always before 
that time enjoyed it," and thus endeavoured to derive our title to 
it from (46) prescription. A title, derived from immemorial usage, 
antecedent to 1783, could not well owe its origin or its validity 
(47) to a compact concluded at that time, and we (48) could, therefore, 
in this view of the subject, correctly say that this privilege (49)vvas no 
new grant ; that is, that our right to the exercise of it was totally 
independent of such compact. If we were well-founded, however, 
in the assertion of our prescriptive title, it was quite (50) unneces- 
sary to attempt to give a kind of charmed existence to the treaty of 
1783, and to extend its (51) undefinable influence to every article of 
which it was composed, merely to preserve that title which we 
declared to be in no way derived from it, and which had existed, 
and, of course, could exist, without it. 

It was rather unfortunate, too, for our argument against a seve-. 
ranee of the provisions of that treaty, that we should have disco- 
vered, ourselves, (52) a radical difierence between them, making the 
fishing (53) privilege depend on immemorial usage, and, of course, dis- 
tinct in its nature (54) and origin from the rights resulting from our 
independence. 

We, indeed, throw some obscurity over this subject when we de- 
clare to you that this privilege was always enjoyed by us before the 
treaty of 1 783, thence inferring that it was not granted by that trea- 
ty, and in the same sentence and from the same fact, appear also to 
infer, that it was not to be forfeited by war any more than (55) any 
other of the rights of our independence, making it thus one of (56) these 

rights, and of course, according to our doctrine, dependant on that 
treaty. 

There might have been nothing incomprehensible in this mode 
of reaeoning, had the treaty recognised this privilege to be derived 
from prescription, and confirmed it on that ground. The treaty 
has, however, not the slightest allusion to the past, in reference to 
this privilege, but regards it only with a view to the future. The 
treaty, (57 therefore, cannot be construed as supporting a pre-exist- 
ing title, but as containing a grant entirely new. If we claim, there- 
fore, under the treaty, we must renounce prescription, and if we 
claim from prescription, we can derive no aid from the treat3\ If 
tlie treaty be imperisiiable in all its partf , the fishing privilege re- 
mains unimpaired without a recurrence to immemorial usage ; and 
if our title to it be well-founded on immemorial usage, the treaty 
may perish without affecting it. To have endeavoured to support 
it on both grounds, implies that we had not entire confidence in 
either, and to have proposed a new article, indicates a distrust of 
both. 

It is not, as I conceive, difficult to show that we (58) cannot, in- 
deed, derive (59) a better title to this fishing privilege, from pre- 
scription, than from any indestructible quality of the treaty of 1783. 



[duplicate.] 71 

With regard to the fishing privilege, we distinctly stated to you, 
in our letter of the (43) 25th of December last, that (44) at the time of 
the treaty of 1783, it was (45) no new grant, we having always before 
that time enjoyed it, and thus endeavoured to derive our title to it 
from (46) prescription ; a title derived from immemorial usage, ante- 
cedent to 1783, could not well owe its origin, or its validity, (47) to 
any compact, concluded at that time ; and we (48) might, therefore, 
in this view of the subject, correctly say that this privilege (49) was 
then no new grant ; that is, that our right to the exercise of it was 
totally independent of such compact. If we were well founded, 
however, in the assertion of our prescriptive title, it was quite 
(50) unnecessary for us to attempt to give a kind of charmed existence 
to the treaty of 1783, and to extend its (51) indefinable influence to 
every article of which it was composed, merely to preserve that 
title which we declared to be in no way derived from it, and which 
had existed, and, of course, could exist without it. 

It was rather unfortunate, too, for our argument against the se- 
verance of the provisions of that treaty, that we should have dis- 
covered, ourselves, (52) such a radical difference between them, 
making the fishing (53) privilege to depend on the immemorial usage, 
and, of course, distinct, in its nature (51) and in its origin, from the 
rights resulting from our independence. 

We indeed throw some obscurity over this subject, when we de- 
clare to you that this privilege was always enjoyed by us before 
the treaty of 1783 ; thence inferring that it was not granted by that 
treaty, and, in the same sentence, and from the same fact, appear 
also to infer that it was not to be forfeited by war, any more than 
(55) any other of the rights of independence ; making it thus one of (56) 
those rights, and. of course, according to our doctrine, dependant on 
that treaty. There might have been nothing incomprehensible in 
this mode of reasoning, had the treaty recognised this privilege to 
be derived from prescription, and confirmed it on that ground. 
The treaty, however, has not the slightest allusion to the past, in 
reference to this privilege, but regards it only with a view to the 
future. The treaty (57) cannot, therefore, be construed as support- 
ing a pre-existing title, but as containing a grant entirely new. If 
we claim, therefore, under the treaty, we must renounce prescrip- 
tion ; and if we claim from prescription, we can derive no aid from 
the treaty. If the treaty be imperishable in all its parts, the fish- 
ing privilege remains unimpaired, without a recurrence to imme- 
morial usage ; and if our title to it be well founded on immemorial 
usage, the treaty may perish without affecting it. To have endea- 
voured to support it on both grounds, implies that we had not entire 
confidence in either, and to have proposed a new article indicates 
a distrust of both. 

It is not, as I conceive, difficult to show that we (58) can, indeed, 
derive (59) no better title to this fishing privilege from prescriptioiv, 
than from any indestructible quality of the treaty of 1783. 



72 [private.] 

Prescription (60) appears to me to be inapplicable to the (61) parties 
and to the (62) subject, and to be defective both in (63) fact and effect- 
As to the parties : — the immemorial enjoyment of a privilege 
within British jurisdiction, by British subjects, the inhabitants of 
British colonies, could not well be considered as evidence of a title 
to that privilege claimed (64) by the citizens of an independent repub- 
lic, residing within the exclusive jurisdiction of that republic. The 
people of the United States, as such, could have claime<l no special 
privilege within the dominions of any foreign power from immemo- 
rial usage, in 1783, when the longest duration of their own existence 
in that quality was little more, at the utmost, than the brief period 
of seven years, which is surely not beyond the memory of man, 
(ultra memoriam kominis.) The people of the United States had 
never, in fact, during that period, enjoyed the fishing privilege a 
moment ; being eflfectually prevented therefrom by the existing 
state of hostilities. Nor could the inhabitants of the colonies, ori- 
ginally constituting the United States, even in their colonial condi- 
tion, acquire against their sovereign any right from long usage 
(65) or mere lapse of time, (66) (nullum tempus regi occunit.) The Bri- 
tish sovereign was always competent to regulate (67) and restrain his 
colonies in their commerce and intercourse with each other, when- 
ever and however he might think proper, and had he forbid his 
subjects in the province of (68) Massachusetts, to fish (69) and dry and 
cure fish in the bays, harbours, and creeks of Labrador, which, by 
the way, had (70) not immemoriaily belonged to him, it is not to be ima- 
gined that they would have conceived themselves discharged from 
the obligation of submitting, on account of any pretended right from 
immemorial usage. The fishing privilege, therefore, enjoyed by 
British subjects within British jurisdiction, could give no perma- 
nent and independent right to those subjects themselves and, 
(71) a fortiori, no such right to the citizens of the United States, 
claiming under a (72) different estate and in a different capacity. 
Great Britain might, indeed, as well prescribe for the prerogatives 
of her sovereignty over us, as we for any of the privileges which 
we enjoyed as her subjects. 

I do not think it necessary to inquire how far the practice of the 
people of Massachusetts was the practice of (73) the whole original 
thirteen United States, or of the United States now, including Lou- 
isiana ; or how far the immemorial usage of the people of Boston 
can establish a prescriptive right in the people of New-Orleans. 
1 trust I have said enough to show that prescription is (74) inapplica- 
ble to the parties. It is also, 1 conceive, inapplicable to the subject. 

Had the United States, as an independent nation, enjoyed, from 
time immemoriiil, the fishing privilege in question, still, from the 
nature of this privilege, no prescriptive right (75) could have thence 
been established, A right to fish, or to trade, or to do (76) any other 
act or thing within the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign state, is a 
(77) simple power, a right (78) of mere ability, (jms merce /acM?/a/wO de- 



[buplicate.} 73 

Prescription (60) appears to be inapplicable to the (61) parties, and 
to the (62) subject, and to be detective both in (63) /ac/ and effect. 

As to the parties : — the immemorial enjoyment of a privilege, 
within British jurisdiction, by British subjects, the inhabitants of 
British colonies, could not well be considered as evidence of a title 
to that privilege, (64) claimed by citizens of an independent repub- 
lic, residing within the exclusive jurisdiction of that republic. The 
people of the United States, as such, could have claimed no special 
privilege within the dominions of any foreign power, from imme- 
morial usage, in 1783, when the longest duration of their own ex. 
istence in that quaUty was little more, at the utmost, than the brief 
period of seven years, which is surely not beyond the memory of 
man, {ultra memoriam ho minis.) The people of the United States 
had never, in fact, during that period, enjoyed the fishing privilege 
a moment, being efi'ectually prevented therefrom by the existing 
state of hostihties. Nor could the inhabitants of the colonies, origin- 
ally constituting the United States, even in their colonial condition, 
acquire against their sovereign any right from long usage, (65) or the 
mere lapse of time, (66) {nullum iempusregi occurrit.) The British so- 
vereign was always competent to regulate (67) or to restrain them in 
their commerce and intercourse with each other, whenever and 
however he might think proper. And had he forbid his subjects, 
in the province of (68) MaBsachusetts Bay, to fish, (69) and to dry and 
cure fish, in the bays, harbours, and creeks, of Labrador, which, 
by the way, had (70) not immemorially belonged to him, it is not to be 
imagined that they would have conceived themselves discharged 
from the obligation of submitting, on account of any pretended right 
from immemorial usage. 

The fishing privilege, therefore, enjoyed by British subjects, 
within British jurisdiction, could give no permanent and independ- 
ent right to those subjects themselves, and, (71) afortiori, no such 
right to the citizens of the United States, claiming, under a 1.72) dif- 
ferent estate, and in a different capacity. Great Britain might, indeed, 
as well prescribe for the prerogatives of her sovereignty over us, 
•as we for any of the privileges which we enjoyed as her subjects. 
1 do not think it necessary to inquire how far the practice of the 
people of Massachusetts was the practice of (73) the people of the 
whole original thirteen United States, or of the United States now, 
including Louisiana ; or how far the immemorial usage of the people 
of Boston can establish a prescriptive right in the people of New- 
Orleans. I trust 1 have said enough to show that prescription is 
(li) inapplicable to the parties. 

It is, also, I conceive, inapplicable to the subject. Had the 
United States, as an independent nation, enjoyed, from time imme- 
morial, the fishing privilege in question, still, from the nature of 
this privilege, no prescriptive right (75) would have thence been 
established. A right to fish, or to trade, or to do (76) any other 
thing, within the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign state, is a (77) 
simple power} a right (jQ) of v\t,Tc abilily, jus merse facultaiis, depend- 



74 [private.-] 

jieiiding on the will oi' SUCll state, (79) and is consequently imprescripti- 
We. An independent (80*) title can be derived only from treaty. 

I conceive, therefore, that (80) our claim to the fishing privilege^ 
from immemorial usage, is not only unsupported by the (81) fact, 
but cannot, in (82) effect, result from such usage. 

I have, (83) from this view of the subject, been led to conclude, 
that the treaty of 1783, in relation to the fishing liberty, is abrogat- 
ed by the war ; that this liberty is totally destitute of support from 
prescription ; (8*) and that we are, consequently, left without any title 
to it whatsoever. For, I cannot prevail upon myself to seek for 
such a title in the relative situation of the parties, at the time of ne- 
gotiating the treaty of 1783, and contend, according to the insinua- 
tion contained in our letter to you of the (85) 2lst of December, that 
the jurisdiction of Great Britain over the colonies, assigned to her 
in America, was a grant (86) from the United States, and that the 
United States, in making this grant, (87) reserved to themselves the 
privilege in question. Such a pretension, however lofty, is so in- 
consistent with (88) the circumstances of the case, and with any sober 
construction which can be given to that treaty, that I shall, I trust, 
be excused from seriously examining its validity. 

Having thus stated some of the reasons which induced me to diifer 
in opinion from a majority of my colleagues, relative to the cha- 
racter of the treaty of 1783, as well as with regard to every other 
ibundation on which they were (89) disposed to rest our title to the 
fishing privilege, I shall now proceed to explain the (90) causes 
which influenced me to dissent from them in the interpretation of 

©ur (91) instructions. 

These instructions forbid us to permit our (92) rights to the trade 
beyond the (93) Cape of Good Hope, to the fisheries, and to Louisiana, tO 
be brought into discussion. I conceived that this prohibition ex- 
tended to the general rights only, which affected our sovereignty, 
and resulted from it, and not (94) to mere special liberties and privi- 
leges which had no relation to that sovereignty, either as to its na-' 
ture or extent. 

The right (95) relating to the trade beyond the Cape of Good 
Hope, was the right which belonged to us as an independent (96) na- 
tion, in common with all other independent nations, and not the permission of 

trading to those parts of the East Indies which were within the e)c- 
clusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. In like manner, the right to 
the fisheries, contemplated by our instructions, was, (07) 1 conceived, 
the right, common to all nations, to use the open sea for fishing as well 
as for navigation, and (98) not to the liberty to fish (99) and cure fish 
within the territorial limits of any foreign state. The right to 
Louisiana, (lOO) which was not to be brought into discussion, was the 
right to the empire and domain of that region, and (101) not to the 
right of excluding Great Britain from (102) the navigation of the Mis- 
sissippi. 

How far we conformed to this instruction, with regard to the ge- 
neral right to Louisiana, it is not necessary lor me here to inquire ; 



[pUi'LICATE,') 75 

ing on the will of such state, (79) and conseqently imprescriptible. An 
independent (80*) right can be derived only from treaty. 

I conceive, therefore, that ^80) a claim to the fishing privilege, 
from immemorial usage, is not only unsupported by the (81) /ac;, 
but cannot, in (82) effect, result from ?uch usage. 

I hare, (83) in this view of the subject, been led to conclude that 
the treaty of 1783, in relation to the iishing liberty, is abrogated by 
the war, and that this liberty is totally destitute of support from 
prescription (84) and, consequently, that we are left without any title 
to it whatsoever. For, I cannot prevail upon myself to seek for 
such a title in the relative situation of the parties at the time of 
negotiating the treaty of 1 783, and contend, according to the insinua- 
tion contained in our letter to you, of the (85^ 25th of December 
last, that the jurisdiction of Great Britain over the colonies assign- 
ed to her, in America, was a grant (86) of the United States, and 
that the United States, in making this grant, (8?) reserved to themselves 
the privilege in question. Such a pretension, however lofty, is so 
inconsistent with (88) the real circumstances of the case, and with any 
sober construction which can be given to that treaty, that I shall, 
I trust, be excused from seriously examining its validity. 

Having thus stated some of the reasons which induced me to dit- 
fer in opinion from a majority of my colleagues, relative to thfe 
character ef the treaty of 1783, as well as with regard to every 
other foundation on which they were (89) disposed, inconsistently, to rest 
our title to the fishing privilege, I shall now proceed to explain the 
(90) reasons which influenced me to dissent from them in the inter- 
pretation of our (91) instructions relative to that privilege. 

These instructions forbid us to permit our (92) rights to tlie 
trade beyond the (93) Cape of Good Hope, to the fisheries, and to Louisiana,. 
to be brought into discussion. I conceived that this prohibition ex- 
tended to the general rights only, which afiected our sovereignty 
and resulted fredi it, and not (94) the special liberties and privileges 
which had no relation to that sovereignty, either as to its nature or 
extent. 

The right, (95) relative to the trade beyond the Cape of Good 
Hope, was the right which belonged to us as an independent 
(96) nation, and not to the permission of trading to those parts of the 
East Indies which were within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great; 
Britain. In like manner, the right to the fisheries, contemplated 
by our instructions, was, (97) I conceive, the right to use the open sea 
fbr fishing as well as for navigation, and (98) not the liberty to fish, 
(99) and to cure fish, within the territorial limits of any foreign state. 
The right to Louisiana, (100) which, by those instructions, were not to be 
brought into discussion, was the right to the empire and domain of 
that region, and (lol) not the right of excluding Great Britain from 
(102) the free navigation of the Mississippi. 

How far we conformed to this instruction, with regard to the ge- 
neral right to Louisiana, it isiiot necessary for me here to inquire : 



76 [mivATE.J 

?)Ut certainly the majority believed (103) themselves permitted to offer 
a very explicit proposition with regard to the navigation of its prin- 
cipal (104) river. I believed, with them, that we were so permitted, and that 
we were likewise permitted to offer a proposition relative to the fishing liberty, 
and had the occasion required it, to make proposals concerning the trade to the 
British East Indies. I was persuaded, that treating relative to these privileges, 
or discussing the obligation or expediency of granting or witholding them, re- 
spectively, violated in no way our instructions, or affected the general rights 
which vre were forbidden to bring into discussion. 



Considering, therefore, the fishing liberty to be entirely at ati 
end, without a new stipulation for its revival, and believing that we 
were entirely free to discuss the terms and conditions of such a 
stipulation, I did not object to the article proposed by us because 
any article on the subject was unnecessary, or contrary to our in* 
structions, but I objected specially to that article, because, by con- 
ceding (105) in it the free navigation of the Mississippi, (106) we offered, 
in my estimation, for the fishing privilege, a price much above its value. 

In no view of the subject could I discover any il07) analogy between 
the two objects, and the only reason for connecting them and mak- 
ing them mutual equivalents for each other, appeared to be because 
they were both found in the treaty of 1783. 

If that treaty was abrogated by the war, as I consider it to have 
been, any connexion between its parts must have ceased, and the 
liberty of navigating the Mississippi by British subjects must, at 
least, be completely at an end ; for it will not, I trust, be attempted 
to continue it by a (108) prescriptive title, or to consider it as a 
(109) reservation, made by the United States, from any grant of sove- 
leignty which, at the treaty of peace, they accorded to Great Bri- 
tain. If, indeed, it was such a reservation, it must have been in- 
tended for (110) our benefit, and, of (Hi) course, could be no equivalent 
for the fishing (112) privilege. If it is considered as a reservation 
made by Great Britain, it will reverse (113) the facts assumed by us 
in relation to that privilege. 

The (114) third article of the treaty of 1783, respecting the fish- 
eries, and the (115) eighth article of that treaty, respecting the Missis- 
sippi, had not the slightest reference to each other, and were placed 
as remote, the one from the other, as the limits of that treaty could 
well admit. Whatever, therefore, (116) was the cause of inserting 
the fishing liberty, whether it was a voluntary and gratuitous grant 
on the part of Great Britain, or extorted from her as a condition 
on which the peace depended, it could have had no relation (H?) to 
the free navigation of the Mississippi. .Besides, the article relative 



[DUPLICATE.] 77 '' 

but, certainly, the majority believed (I03J themselves to be paimitted, 
their own construction to tlie contrary notwithstanding, to oifer a verv expli- 
cit proposition, with regard to the navigation of its principal 
(104) river ; now, this offer I considered, for the reasons just suggested, not to 
be a violation of the instructions in question, but I considered it to be against 
both tlie letter and the spirit of our instructions of the l3th of April, I8I3. By 
these instructions we were explicitly and implicitly directed " to avoid airy 
stipulation wliich miglu restrain the United States Ciom excltcdiiig the British 
traders from the navigation of ihe lakes and rivers, exclusively withm our own 
jurisdiction.'''' This instiuction applied with the greater force to the Mississippi 
because, as it is believed, it was t^e only river to -.vhich it could apply. 

While I believed, therefore, tliat we were permitted to offer a proposition re- 
lative to tlie fishing liberty ; and that, in treating concerning this liberty, or in 
discussing our claim to it, we in no way violatefl our instructions, nor aflected 
the general rights vvliich we were forbidden to bring into discussion ; I did be- 
lieve, and do still believe, that we were expressly and unequivocally forbidden 
fi) offer or to renew a stipulation for the free navigation, by the British, of the 
Mississippi, a river within our exclusive jurisdiction. 

Considering, therefore, the fishing hberty to be entirely at an 
end, without a new stipulation for its revival ; and believing that 
we were entirely free to discuss the terms and conditions of such a 
stipulation, I did not object to the article proposed by us, because 
any article on the subject was unnecessary, or contrary to our in- 
structions, but I objected specially to that article, because, by con- 
ceding (105) in it, to Great Britain, the free navigation of the Mississippi 

(106) we not only diiectly violated our instructions, but we offered, in my esti- 
mation, a price 7nuch above its value, and wliicli could not justly be given. 

In no vieiv of the subject, could I discover any (107) analogy or 
relation beetwc; li the two objects ; and the only reason for connecting 
them, and making thern mutual equivalents for each other, appeared 
to be, because they were both found in the treaty of 1783. If that 
treaty was abrogated by the war, as I consider it to have been, any 
connection between its parts must have ceased., and the liberty of 
navigating the Mississippi, by British subjects, must, at least, be 
completely at an end; for it v/ill not, 1 trust, be attempted to con« 
tinue it by a (108) prescriptive title, or to consider in as a (108) rcserva^ 
lion made by the United States from any grant of sovereignty, which 
at the treaty of peace, llit'y accorded to Great Britain. If, indeed 
it were such a reservation, it must have been intended for (HOoi^i- 
benefit, and of (HI) course, no equivalent for the fishing (112) privilege, 
likewise for our benefit. If it is considered as a reservation made by 
Great Britain, it will reverse (113) all the facts assumed by us in re* 
lation to that privilege. 

The '114) third article of the treaty of 1783, respecting the fish- 
eries, and the *ll5i cig/i//i of that treaty, respecting the Mississippi, 
had not the slightest reference to each other, and were placed as 
remote, the one from the other, as the limits of that treaty could 
well admit ; whatever, therefore, (116 might have been the cause of 
inserting the fishing liberty whether it was a voluntary and gralui> 
tons grant on the part of Great Britain, or extorted from her as a 
condition, on which the peace depended, it could have had no re« 
fetioa (117) with the free navigation of the Mississippi. Besides, the 

10 



78 [PRIVATE.] 

to tliis river must, from the evident views of the parties at the 
time, from (118) their supposed lelations to each other, and from their 
known relations to a third (119) power, as to this river, have been con- 
sidered of mutual and equal advantage, and furnished no subject 
for compensation or adjustment in any other provision of that treaty. 
Both parties believed that this river touched the territories of 
both, and that, of course, both had a right to its navigation. As 
Spain possessed both banks of this river, to a considerable distance 
from its mouth, and one of its banks nearly throughout its whole 
extent, both parties had an interest in uniting to prevent that power 
from obstructing its navigation. Had not the article been intended 
to engage the parties in relation to Spain, they (I'iO) would, probably, 
have limited it to the navigation of the river (121) as far as their own 
territories extended on it, and not have stipulated for this naviga- 
tion to the ocean, which necessarily carried it through the exclufeive 
territories of Spain. 

If the circumstances had been, in fact, such as the parties at the 
time believed them to be, and with a view to which they acted ; or 
had these circumstance? subsequently experienced no radical 
change ; Great Britain would have gained now no more than she 
would have granted by the (122) revival of the article in relation to 
(123) the Mississippi, and would not, any more than in 1183, have ac- 
Icnowledged any equivalent to be conferred by it for our liberty 
relative to the fisheries. The circumstances, however, assumed 
by the parties, at the time, in relation to Great Britain, and from 
which her rights were deduced, have not only, in part, been disco- 
vered not to have existed, but those which did exist have been en- 
tirely changed by subsequent events. It has (1^4^ been ascertainetJ 
that the territories assigned to Great Britain, no where, in fict, 
reached the Mississippi ; and the acquisition of Louisiana by the 
United States (125) has forever removed the Spanish jurisdiction 
that rivtr. 

The whole consideration, therefore, on the part of Great Britain, 
whether derived from her territorial rights, or from her part of the 
reciprocal obligations relative to Spain, having entirely failed, our 
engagements, entered into on account of that consideration, may be 
fairly construed to have terminated with it. 

In this view of the subject. Great Britain could have had no title 
to the navigation of the Mississippi, even if a war had not taken 
place between the parties. To renew, therefore, the claims of 
Great Britain, under that article, subject to this construction, would 
be granting her nothing ; and to renew that article, independent of 
this construction, and without any reference to the circumstances 
that attended its origin, in 1783, or to the events which have since 
occurred in relation to it, would be granting her advantages not 
only entirely (126)uni-lateral, as it relates to the article itself, but, 
(127)asl believe, of mucb greater importance than any which we 
could derive from the liberty relative to the fisheries. 



[duplicate.] 79 

article relative to this river, must, from the evident views of the 
parties at the time, from UlS) their relations to each other, and from 
their known relations to a third (119) power, have been considered of 
mutual and equal advantage, and furnished no subject for compen- 
sation or adjustment in any other provision of that treaty. 

Both parties believed that this river touched the territories of 
both, and that of course both had a right to its navigation. As Spain 
possessed both banks of this river to a considerable distance from 
its mouth, and one of its banks nearly throughout its whole extent, 
both parties had an interest in uniting to prevent that power from 
obstructing its navigation. Had not the article been intended to en- 
gage the parties in relation to Spain, they (120) probably would have 
limited it to the navigation of thejriver, (.121) so far as their own terri' 
tories extended on it, and not have stipulated for its navigation to 
the ocean, which necessarily carried it through the exclusive ter- 
ritories of Spain. If the circumstances had been, in fact, such as 
the parties at the time believed them to be, and with a view to 
which they acted, or had these circumstances subsequently expe- 
rienced no Tctdical change. Great Britain would have gained now, 
no more than she would have granted by the (122) renewal of the 
article in relation to (123) the navigation of the Mississippi, and would 
not, any more than in 1783, have acknowledged any equivalent to 
be conferred by it, for our liberty relative to the fisheries. The 
circumstances, however, assumed by the parties at the time, in re- 
lation to Great Britain, and from which her rights were deduced, 
have not only, in part, been since discovered not to have existed, 
but those which did exist have been entirely changed by subse<» 
quent events. 

It has (124) been clearly ascertained, that the territories, assigned to 
Great Britain, no where, in fact, reached the Mississippi ; and, the ac- 
quisition of Louisiana, by the United States, (125) had forever removed 
the Spanish jurisdiction from that river. The whole consideration, 
therefore, on the part of Great Britain, whether derived from her 
territorial rights, or from her part of the reciprocal obligations, re- 
lative to Spain, having entirely failed, our engagements, entered 
into, on account of that consideration, may be fairly construed to 
have terminated with it. 

In this view of the subject, Great Britain could have had no title 
to the navigation of the Mississippi, even if a war had not taken 
place between the parties. To renew, therefore the claims of 
Great Britain, under that article, subject to this construction, would 
be granting her nothing ; and, to renew that article, independent of 
this construction, and without any reference to the circumstances 
that attended its origin in 1783, or to the events which have since 
occurred in relation to it, would be granting her advantages not 
only entirely (126) ■Unilateral, as it relates to the article itself, but, 
(127' as I believed, of much greater importance than any which we 
tould derive fronj the liberty relative to the fisheries. 



80 [tRivxrv,.] 

If the article which we (128) offered merely intended to rescne thR 
third and eighth articles of the treaty of 1783, from the operation 
of the present war, and to continue them precit'oly as they were 
immediately prior lo this war, the third article being then in full 
force, and the eighth article being no longer (^2^) ol.ligatory, we 
should have attempted to exchange, like General Drnnimond, the 
dead for the living. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Erilish government 
should, in suspecting such an intention, (53*^) have rejected our pro- 
position. I was opposed, however, to making the proposition, not 
only because I was convinced that it was (131) oiiered witli no such 
intention, but because I believed it would give to Great Britain 
the free navigation of the Mississippi, under circumstances, and 
evidently for an object, which would place it on very distinct 
trounds from those on which it was placed by the treaty of 1783. 

The whole of the Mississippi being now exclusively within the 
acknowledged jurisdiction of the United States, a simple renewal 
of the BriUsh right to navigate it would place that right beyond 
the reach of the war, and of every other previous circumstance 
which might have impaired or terminated it; and the (132) power 
to grant, on our part, being now complete, the right to enjoy, 

(133"! on hers,undev our grant, must be complete also. 

It would be absurd to suppose that any thing impossible was in- 
tended, and that Great Britain was to be allowed to navigate the 
Mississippi (131) precisely as she (135) could have navigated it imme- 
diately after the treaty of 1783 ; as if her territories extended to 
it, and as if Spain was (136) in entire possession of one of its banks 
and of a considerable portion of the other. The (137) revival of the 
British right to navigate the Mississippi would be, (138) under exist- 
ing circumstances, a new and complete grant to her, measured by 
these circumstances, and thence embracing not only the entire free- 
dom of the whole extent of (139) that river, but the unrestrained access 

to it across our territories. If we did not intend (14o) this, we intended 
nothing which Great Britain could accept ; and, whatever else 
(l4l) might have been intended, if not at once rejected by her, would hereafter 

have been the subject of new and endless controversy. When, how- 
ever, we connected the revival of the navigation of the Mississippi 
with the revival of the (142) liberty of taking and curing fish within 
the British jurisdiction, two things, which never before had any re- 
lation to each other, we evidently meant, if we acted (143) in good 
faith, not only to concede, as well as to obtain something, but also 
to be understood as conceding an equivalent for what we obtained. 



In thus offering the navigation of the Mississippi, and the nccesj* 
to it through oar territories, as an equivalent for the tishing liberty, 
we not only placed both on ground entirely different from that 
(144) in which they respectively stood in the treaty of 1783, and 
acted somewhat inconsistently with our own reasoning relative to 



[DUPLICATE.] 8| 

If the article which we (128) offered was merely intended to rescu<^ 
the tlurd and eiji;hth articles of the treaty of 1783, from the opera- 
tion of the ]>rosent war, and to continue them precisely as the}' 
were immethateiy prior to this uiir, the third article beino- then in 
full force, and (he eighth article being no longer 0'19} operative, we 
should have attempted to exchange, like General Drummond, the 
dead for the living. It is not siirpiising, therefore, that the British 
government, in suspecting such an intention, (130) slionld have re- 
jected our proposition. 

1 was opposed, however, to making the proposition, not only be- 
cause I was convinced that it vv;rs (131) made with no such inten- 
tion, but because 1 believed it would give to Great Biitain the free 
navigation of the Mississippi, under circumstances, and evidently 
for an object, which would place it on very distinct grounds fi'om 
those on which it was placed by the treaty of 17o3. 

The whole of the Mississippi being now exclusively within the 
acknowledged jurisdiction of the United States, a simple renewal 
of the British right to navigate it would place tiiat right beyond the 
reach of the war ; and every other previous circumstance which 
might have impaired oi" terminated it, and the (132) right to grant, 
on our part, being now complete, the right to enjoy, (133) on the pair 
of Great Britain, must be complete also. It would be absurd to sup- 
pose that any thing impossible was intended, and that Great Britain 
was to be allowed to navigate the Mississippi (13^) only as she 
(135) would have navigated it immediately after the treaty of 1783, 
as if her territories extended to it, and as if Spain was (l26) in the 
entire possession of one of its banks, and of a considerable portion 
of the other. The (137) recognition of the British right to navigate 
the Mississippi, would be, (138) wider existing ctrcumslances, a new ami 
complete grant to her, measured by these circumstances, andj 
thence, embracing not only the entire freedom of the whole extent 
of (l39) the riv«r and its tributary waters, but unrestrained access to it 

across our territories. If we did not intend (1*0) to offer this, we in- 
tended to offer nothing which Great Britain could accept ; and what- 
ever else (I'l'l) we might have intended to offer, if not at once rejected by her, 
would at least have been, hereafter, the subject of new and endless COR- 

troversy. 

When, however, we connected the revival of the navig.ition of 
the Mississippi with the revival of the (142) privilege of taking and 
curing tish within the British jurisdiction, tAvo things which never 
before had any relation to each other, we evidently meant, if we 
acted (143) with good faith, not only to concede, as well as to ob- 
tain something, but also to be understood as conceding an equiva- 
lent for what we obtained. 

In thus olTering the navigation of the Mississippi, and the access 
to it through our territories, as an equivalent for the fishing liberty, 
We not only placed both on ground entirely different from that 
(144) on which they respectively stood in the treaty of 1 783, and 
acted somewhat inconsistently with pur own reasotiing, relative to^ 



82 [I'RIVATE,] 

the origin and immortality of the hitter, imt we ottered to concede 
(145) much more than we couhl hope to gain (HG) by tlie airaiigcinent, 
wiili wliatever view its comparative effects niiglit be csiimateil. 

From the year 178;>, to the coniincncement of the present war, 
the actual advantages derived from the fishing privilege hy the peo- 
ple of the United States, were, according to the best information 
that (147)1 can obtain on the subject, very inconsiderable, and an- 
nually experiencing a voluntary diminution. 

It was discovered that the obscurity and humidity of the atmos- 
phere, owing to almost incessant fogs, in the high northern latitudes, 
where this privilege was chietly located, prevented the eifectual 
curing of fish in those regions, and, consequently, lessened very 
much the value of the (M8) liberty of taking them there. By far 
the greatest part o( the fish taken by our fishermen before the pre- 
sent war, was (149) caught in the open sea or (150) upon our own 
coasts, and cured on (151) our own shores. This branch of the fish- 
eries has been found to be inexhaustible, and has been pursued 
with so much more certainty and despatch than the privileged por- 
tion (152) within the British jurisdiction, that it has not onl}^ been ge- 
nerally preferred by our fishermen, but would probably, on longer 
experience, have been almost universally used by them. It was 
to be believed, therefore, that a discontinuance of the privilege of 
taking and curing fish, within the British jurisdiction, would not, 
at all, diminish the aggregate quantity taken by the people of the 
United States, or (133) very materially vary the details of the business. 
That part of the fisheries which would (154) still have belonged to us 
as a nation, being exhaustless, would aQbrd an ample field for all 
the capital and industry hilherto employed in the general business 
of fishing, or merchandise of fish, and on that field might the few 
fishermen, who had hitherto used the liberty of taking and curing 
fish within the jurisdiction of Great EJritain, exei-t their skill and 
labour without any serious inconvenience. (155) This liberty, lia- 
ble (156) in a vQry considerable degree by the terms in which it was 
oranted, to be curtailed hy the government and subjects of a foreign 
stale ; already growing into voluntary disuse by our own citizens, on 
account of the difficulties inseparable from it, and absolutely inca- 
pable of extension ; was totally unnecessary to us for subsistence 
or occupation, and alibrded, (157) in no way, any commercial facility 
or political advantage. This privilege, too, while it was thus of 
little (158) or uo utility to us, cost Great Britain literally (159) nothing. 

The free navigation of the Mississippi, with the necessary access 
to it, is a grant of a very different character. If it was not hereto- 
fore used by Great Britain, it was, perhaps, because she did not 
consider herself entitled to it, or because the circumstances of the 
moment suspended its practical utility. The treaty of 1783 stipu- 
lated for her the navigation of this river, under the presumption 
that her territories extended to it, and, of course, could not intend 
to give her an access to it through our territories. The British 
possessions to the westward of Lake Erie, being almost entirely 



[DUPLICATE.] {J3 

the origin and immortality of the latter, but we offered to conce<fe 
(145) much more than vve could hope to gain (146) by the arrangement. 

From the year 1783, to the commencement of the present war, 
the actual advantages derived Irom the tishing privilet^e by the 
people of the United States, were, according to the best informa- 
tion that ill'') we could obtain on the subject, very inconsiderable 
and annually experiencing a voluntary diminution. 

It was discovered that the obscurity ami humidity of the atmos- 
phere, owing to almost incessant fogs in the high northern latitudes, 
where this privilege was chiefly located, prevented the eftectual 
curing of fish in those regions, and, consequently, lessened very 
much the value of the IMS) privilege of taking them there. By far 
the greatest part of the fish taken by our fishermen before the 
present war, was C'49) taken in the open sea, or (15o)on our own 
coasts, and cured on ;ljl) our shores. This branch of the fisheries 
has heen found to be inexhaustible, and has been pursued with so 
much m.ire certainty and despatch than the privileged porlioa 
(152) within British jurisdiction, that it has not only been generally 
preferred by our fishermen, but would, probably, on longer expe- 
rience, have been almost universally used by them. It was to be 
believed, therefore, that a discontinuance of the privilege of taking 
and curing fish within the British jurisdiction, would not, at all, 
diminish the aggregate quantity taken by the peopli of the United 
Sf ites, or (153) va.y mateiially the details of the busmess. That pait 
of the fisheries which would (154) still belong to us as a nation, being 
eshaustless, would afford an ample field for all the capital and in- 
du?!try hitherto employed in the general business of fishing, or mer- 
chandise offish ; and on that field might the few fishermen who had, 
hitherto, used the liberty of taking and curing fish within the ju- 
risdiction of Great Britain, exert their skill and labour without any 
serious inconvenience. (1^5) That fiberty, liable, (I5t>) to a very 
considerable degree, by the terms in which it was granted, to be 
curtailed by the government and subjects of a foreign state, already 
growing into voluntary disuse by our own citizens, on account of 
the ditiiiculties inseparable from it, and absolutely incapable of ex- 
tension, vas totally unnecessary to us for subsistence or occupa- 
tion, and afforded, (157) in no honest way, either commercial facility, 
or political advantage. This privilege, too, while it was thus of 
little (158) and precarious utility to US, cost Great Britain literally 

(150) nilhing. 

Th? free navigation of the Mississippi, with the necessary access 
to it, IS a grant of a very different character. If it was not, here- 
tofore, used by Great Britain, it was, perhaps, because she did not 
consider herself entitled to it ; or because the circumstances of the 
moment suspended its practical utility. The treaty of 1783 stipu- 
lated, fof her, the navigation of this river, under the presumption 
that her territories extended to it, and of course, could not intend 
to give her access to it through our territories. The British pos- 
sessions to the westward of J.ake Erie beine almost entirely unset* 



84 LPRlVATE.l 

uoseUled, rendered, perhaps, the free navigation of the Mississippi, 
for the moment, of little advantage to her, particularly as her right 
to reach it was at least equivocal ; and as, by another treaty, she 
could cany on trade with our Indians. 

This navigation might, indeed, for a long time to come, he of lit- 
tle use to her for all the (ICO) legitimate purposes of transit and in- 
tercourse ; but every change that could take place in this respect 
must increase its importance to her; while every change in the 
fishing liberty (161) would be to the disadvantage of the United 
States. 

The freedom {.^G2) of the Mississippi, however, is not to be esti- 
mated by tlie mere legitimate uses that would be maJe of it. The 
unrestrained and undefined access which would have been inferred 
from the article which we proposed, (163) would have placed in the 
hands of Great Britain and her subjects all the facilities of commu- 
nication with our own citizens, and with the Indians inhabiting the 
immense regions of our western teri'itory. It is not in the nature 
of things that these facilities should not have been abused for un- 
righteous purposes. A vast field for contraband (ItJt) and iniiigue 
would have been laid open, and our western territories would have 
swarmed with British smugglers and British emissaries. The re- 
venue would have been defrauded by the illicit introduction of 
English merchandise, and the lives of ourcitizens, and tbe security 
of a valuable pfrtion of our (}^^) country exposed to Indian hostilities, 
excited by an uncontrolled British influence. (1(36) if our in- 
structions to guard against such an influence forbid us to renew the British li- 
berty to trade with our Indians, we certainly violated the split of those instruc- 
tions in offering the means of exercising that influence with still greater facility 
and effect than could result from that liberty. 



What was there in the fishing liberty, either of gain to us, or loss 
to Great Britain, to warrant, in con«ide ration of it, a grant to her of 
such means of fraud and aimoyance ? ^Vhat justice or eq\iality was 
there in exposing to all the horrors of savage warfare the unoffend- 
ing citizens of an immense tract of territory, (167) not at all benefited 
by the fishing privilege, merely to provide for the doubtful accom- 
modation of a (168) few fishermen, in a remote quarter, entirely ex- 
empt from the danger ? 

Such have been the reasons which induced me to differ from u 
majority of my colleagues with regard to the article in question, 
and which I trust will be (169) thought sufficient, at least, to vindicate 
my motives. 

The unfeignsd respect which I feel for the integrity, talents, and 
judgment of those gentlemen, would restrain me from opposing 
them on slight groutids, and a deference for their opinions makes 
me almost Year that I have erred in dissenting from them on the 
nresent occasion. I can but rejoice, however, that the article, as 



^DUPLICATE.] 85 

tied, rendered, perhaps, the free navigation of the Mississippi, for 
the moment, of little advantage to her ; particularly, as her right 
to reach it was, at least, equivocal ; and, as by another treaty, she 
could carry on trade with our Indians. 

This navigation might, indeed, for a long time to come, be of 
little use to her for all the (l60) legitimate purposes of transit and 
intercourse ; but every change that could take place in this respect 
must increase its importance to her, while every change in the 
fishing liberty (161) must be to the disadvantage of the United 
States. 

The freedom (^62) of navigating tlie Mississippi, however, is not 
to be estimated by the mere legitimate uses that would be made of 
it. The unrestrained and undefined access, which would have 
been inferred from the article which we proposed, (1<53) must have 
placed in the hands of Great Britain and her subjects, all the facili- 
ties of communication with our own citizens, and with the Indians 
inhabiting the immense regions of our western territory. It is not 
in the nature of things that these facilities should not have been 
abused for unrighteous purposes. A vast field for contraband (164.) 
and for intrigue would have been laid open, and our western territo- 
ries would have swarmed with British smugglers and British em- 
issaries. The revenue would have been defrauded by the illicit 
introduction of English merchandise, and the lives of our citizens, 
and the security of a valuable portion of our (165) country, would 
liave been exposed to Indian hostilit}', excited by an uncontrolled Bri- 
tish influence. (166) If our instructions of the 15th of April, 1813, already 
cited, forbid us, in order to guard against such an influence, to renew the treaty 
of 1794., " allowing the North West Company and British traders to carry on 
trade, with the Indian tribes within our lin)its, a privilege, the pernicious effects 
of which have been 7nost sensibly felt in the present war," we certainly violated 
the spirit of those instructions in offering the means of exercising that influence 
with still greater facility and effec' than could result from that privikge. 

What was there in the fishing liberty, either of gain to us or losi 
to Great Britain, to warrant, in consideration of it, a grant to her 
of such means of fraud and annoyance ? What justice or equality 
was there, in exposing to all the horrors of savage warfare, the 
unoffending citizens of an immense tract of territory, (167) not at all, 
or but faintly, benefited b}' the fishing privilege, merely to provide 
for the doubtful accommodation of a (168) few fishermen, annually de- 
creasing in number, in a remote quarter, and entirely exempt from 
the danger. 

Such have been the reasons which induced me to differ from a 
majority of my colleagues with regard to the article in question, 
and which, 1 trust, will be (169) deemed sufticient, at least, to vindi- 
cate my motives. 

The unfeigned respect which I feel for the integrity, talent.'?, 
and judgment, of those gentlemen, would restrain me from oppos- 
ing them on slight grounds, and a deference for their opinions makes 
me almost fear that I have erred in dissenting from them on the 
present occasion. I 'an but rejoice, however, that the a'rticle. an 

11 



86 [private.] 

proposed by us, was rejected by Great Britain ; whatever were 
her reasons for rejecting it ; whether, as above suggested, (i7o) she 
suspected some tacit reservation, or want of faith on our part, or sup- 
posed, from the price we at once bid for the fishing privilege, that 
we overrated its value, and might concede for it even more than 
(171) the navigation of the Mississippi, with all its accessary advan- 



(172) We are still at liberty to negotiate for that privilege in a treaty of com- 
merce, should it be found expedient, and to offer for it an equivalent, fair in ita 
eomparative value, and just in its relative effects. In any other way, I trust, 
we shall not consent to purchase its renew-al. 

I have the honour to be, with profound respect. 

Sir, your faithful and obedieVt servant, 

JONA. RUSSELL. 

My argument to demonstrate the abrogation of the treaty of 1783, by the pre- 
sent war, and the consequent discontinuance of the fishing privilege, will, I trust, 
not be ascribed to any hostility to those who were interested in that privilege. I 
have been always ready, and am still ready, to make every sacrifice for the pre- 
servation of that privilege which its nature and utility can justify; but I have 
conscientiously believed that the free navigation of the Mississippi was pregnant 
with too much mischief to be offered indirectly under our construction of the 
treaty, or directly, as a new equivalent for the liberty of taking and curing fish 
within the British jurisdiction. 

We had three other ways of proceeding : 

First. To contend for the indestructibility of the treaty of 1783, thence infer- 
ing the continuance of tlie fishing privilege, without saying any thing about the 
navigation of the Mississippi, which would have reserved our right of contesting 
this navigation on the grounds I have mentioned, specially applicable to it. 

Secondly. To have considered the treaty at an end, and offered a reasonable 
equivalent, wherever it might be found, for the fishing privilege. 

Thirdly. To have made this liberty a sine qua non of peace, as embraced by 
the principle of status ante helium. 

To either of these propositions I would have assented, but I could not consent 
to grant to revive the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, in ordct 
to procure or preserve the fishing liberty. 



[DUPLICATE.'] 87 

proposed by us, was rejected by Great Britain, whatever were her 

reasons for rejecting it ; whether, as above suggested, (l^o) she might 
Jiave suspected some tacit reservation, or want of faith, on our part : 
or supposed, from the j)rice we at once bid for the fishing privi- 
lege, that we overrated its value, and might concede for it evea 
more than (1' 1) the free navigation of the Mississippi, with all its ac- 
cessary advantages 

(172) Let me not, in any thing which I have said, be misunderstood. In 
judging on the interests of the great whole, I am not disposed to undervalue th6 
interests on any of the constituent parts. No one can more highly appreciate 
than I do, a branch of industry which not only adds to national wealth, but 
seenis to create it. Nor can any one more warmly admire the usefulness and 
patriotism of those citizens who are engaged in it, and who have never ceased 
to deserve well of the republic. In times of peace they bring home, amidst con- 
flicting elements, tlie treasures of the deep to enrich their country; and in time* 
of war they contribute, by their skill and intrepidity, to her defence and glory. 
Elut, in our country, where all are equal, the essential security &\\v. prcrper'ty of 
the many must be preferied to the convenience and minor interests of the few. 
In giving this preference, I will frankly confess I had to silence early prepos- 
sions and local predilections, and to listen to the councils of a more enlarged 
patriotism; and to this patriotism I dare appeal for my vindication, not only 
with those to whom I am olficially responsible, but with those with whom I am 
more immediately connected in society, and whose interests may be considered 
to have been unfavourably affected by the views vhich I have deemed it to be 
my duty to adopt. I have always been willing to make any sacrifice lor the 
fishing privilege, which its nature, or comparative importance could justify, but 
I conscientiously believe that the free navigation of the Mississippi, ana the 
access to it which we expressly offered, were pregnant with too much mischief 
to be offered, indirectly, under our construction of the treaty ; or, directly, as 
they were in fact offered, as a new equivalent for the liberty of taking and dry- 
ing fish within the British jurisdiction. 

1 will frankly avow, however^ that my impressions were, and still are, that 
Great Britain, calculating on the success of the powerful expedition which she 
has sent against New-Orleans, confidently expected that she would have become 
the mistress of Louisiana and all its waters ; and that she did not, in this event 
intend to abandon her conquest under the terms of the treaty of Ghent. 

Her ministers had, almost from the commencement of the negotiation, not 
only affected to consider our acquisition of Louisiana as evidence of a spirit of 
agrandizement, but insinuated a dtfcrl in our title to it. Expecting, therefore, 
to obtain the free n ivigation of the Mississippi for nothing, she would not con- 
sent to part even with tlie fishing liberty as an equivalent. If she be disap- 
pointed in her views on Louisiana, and I trust in God and the valour of the 
west that she will be, I shall not be surprised if, hereafter, she grant us the 
fishing privilege, which costs her absolutely nothing, without any extravagant 
equivalent whatever. 

At any rate, we are still at liberty to negotiate for that privilege in a treaty 
of commerce, and to offer foi it an equivalent, fair in its comparative value, 
and just in its relative effects ; and to negotiate for it in this way is evidently 
more wise than to demand it as a condition of peace, or to offer for it a price 
beyond its worth, and which, however excessive, runs the hazard of being re- 
fused, merely by the operation of those unaccommodating passions which are 
inevitably engendered by a state of war. 

I have the honour to be, with the most profound respect, sir, your faithful 
and obedient servant, JONA. RUSSELL. 

To the Hoivble James Monroe, 

Sec^y oj State of the United Slates, kc. Sec. Sec. 

A true copy of a paper left by Jonathan Russell, esq. at the De- 
partment of State, 22d April, 1822, to be communicated to the 
House of Representatives of the United States. 

J. Q. ADAMS, Secretary of State. 



as 



REJMARKS 

On a Paper delivered by Mr. Jonathan Russell, at the Department of State, on 
the 22d of April, 1822, to be communicated to tke House of Representatives^ 
as the duplicate vf a Letter wrillen bij him at Paris, the II th of February, 
I8l5, to the then Secretary of State, and as the Letter called for by the Resolu- 
tion of the House, of I9th April, 1822. 

The first remark that presents itself ui)on this duplicate, is, that 
it is not a copy of the letter really written by Mr. Russell, at Paris, 
on the 11th of February, 1815, to the Secretary of State, and re- 
ceived by him. The latter was marked "private,^"' and, as such, 
was not upon the files of the Department of State ; and, although 
of the same general purport and tenor with the so-called duplicate, 
differed from it in several highly significant passages, of which the 
following parallel, extracted from the two papers, presents one 
example : 



OPlIGINAL. 

" How far we conformed to 
this instruction, with regard to 
the general right to Louisiana, it 
is not necessary for me here to 
inquire ; but certainly the majo- 
rity believed (1^3) themselves per- 
mitted to offer a very explicit pro- 
position with regard to the navi- 
gation of its principal (lO*) river. 
/ believed, with them, that we were so 
permitted, and tiiat we were, likewise, 
permitted to ofier a proposition relative 
to the fishine liberty, and, had the oc- 
casion required it, to make p'.oposals 
concerning the trade to the British 
East hidies. I was persuaded, that 
treating relative to these privileges, or 
discussing the ol)lisution or expedieilcy 
of granting or withholding them, re- 
spectively, violated, in no way, our 
instructions, or affected tlie general 
rights which we were forbidden to 
bring into discussion." 



DUPLICATE. 

" How far we conformed to 
this instruction, with regard to 
the general right to Louisiana, it 
is not necessary for me here to 
inquire ; but certainly the majo- 
rity believed (103) themselves to be 
permitted, their own construction to the 
contrary notwithstanding, to offer a 
very explicit proposition with 
regard to the navigation of its 

principal (104) river; now, this of- 
fer, I considered, for the reasons just 
suggested, not to be a violation of the 
instructions in question, but 1 consi- 
dered it to be against both tlie letter- 
and the spirit of our other instructions 
of the 15th of April, ltjl3. By these 
iiistiuctions, we were explicitly and 
implicitly directed ' to avoid any sti- 
pulation which might restrain the Unit- 
ed Slates from excluding the British 
traders fiom the navigation of the lakes 
and rivers exclusively within our own 

furisdiction.'' This instruction applied 
with the greater force to the Missis- 
sippi, because, as it is believed, it was 
the only river to which it could apply. 
" While I believed, therefore, that 

■ we were permitted to offer a proposi- 
tion relative to the fisiiing liberty, and 
that in treating concerning this liberty, 
or in discussing our claim to it, we in 
)io way violated our instructions, nor 
affected the general rights which we 
were forbidden to bring into discussion, 
} did believe, and do still believe, that 



89 

ORIGINAL. DUPLICATE. 

we were expressly and unequivocally 
forbidden to offer, or to renew, a stipu- 
lation for the free navigation, by the 
British, of the Mississippi, a river 
within our exclusive jurisdiction.'' 

It is here seen that, while in the original letter Mr. Russell did, 
with the majority of his colleagues, oelieve that we were permitted 
by our instructions to make the proposition with regard to the na- 
vigation of the Mississippi, as well as a proposition relative to the 
fishing liberty, he had, when writing the duplicate, brought himself 
to the belief, not only that we were not so permitted, but that he 
had, even at Ghent, considered it as a direct violation both of the 
letter and spirit of our explicit and implicit instructions of 15th 
April, 1813. The solution of this diflerenre in the qjind of Mr. 
Russell, between the writing of the original and the duplicate of 
his letter, may be found in this circumstance. The proposition re- 
lating to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the fishery, was made 
to the British plenipotentiaries on the 1st of December, 1814. It 
had been discussed at the meetings of the American mission, on the 
preceding SOth and 29th of November. On the 24th of that month, 
the American plenipotentiaries had received a letter of instructions 
from the Secretary of State, dated 19th October, 1814, and con- 
taining the following passages : 

" It has been judged proper to communicate to Congress so 
*' much of the instructions given to you by this Department, as 
" would show the terms on which you were authorized to make 
" peace. These, as well as your communications, have been print- 
" ed, and several copies are now forwarded to you, as it is believed 
*'the3fcmay be usefully disposed of in Europe. Should any circum- 
" stance have unexpectedly prolonged the negotiation, and you find 
*' the British commissioners disposed to agree to the status ante bel' 
" lum, you will understand that you are authorized to make it the 
*' basis of a treaty." 

Now, the status ante helium, upon which we were thus expressly 
and unequivocally permitted to conclude a treaty, included not only 
the recognition of the entire treaty of peace of 1783, but the re- 
vival of the first ten articles of the treaty of 1794 ; not only the 
freedom to the British to navigate the iVIississippi, but free ingress 
into our territories, and free trade with our Indians. And so en- 
tirely was that part of the instructions of 15th April, 1813, now 
cited by Mr. Russell, considered by the President as cancelled, 
that it was omitted from that copy, which had been communicated 
to Congress, of "so much of the instructions as would show the 
terms on which we were authorized to make peace,'' and of which 
several printed copies were thus forwarded to us. {See Wait's 
State Papers, vol, IX, p. 339-358.) 

It was scarcely possible that, within the compass of one week, 
Mr. Russell should have forgotten the receipt of the instruction of 



90 

1 9th October, IS 14, fresh from Washington ; nor at all possible 
that he should have considered us as then bound by the instruction 
of 13th April, 1813, to which, in his duplicate, he now so emphati- 
cally refers. The Uth of February, 1815, was yet so recent to 
the date of the conclusion of the treaty, that, in writing the original 
of his letter, the recollection of the new instructions of October, 
1814, had doubtless not escaped him. But when the duplicate was 
written, other views had arisen ; and their aspects are discovered 
in the aggravation of charges against the memory of a dead, and the 
character of living colleagues. 

But whether the real sentiments of Mr. Russell, at Paris, on the 
11th of February, 1815, with regard to the transactions to which 
this passage relates, are to be taken as indicated in the original, or 
in the duplicate, certain it is that the vehement objections to the 
proposed afticle, which, in the duplicate, appear to have made so 
deep an impression on his mind, had as little been made known to 
his colleagues at the time of the discussions at Ghent, as they ap- 
pear to have been to himself, when writing the original of the same 
letter. 

The proposal, to which the whole of Mr. Russell's letter, in both 
its various reahngs, relates, was made to the British plenipotentia- 
ries, not by a majority, but by 'he whole of the American mission, 
includin<' Mr. Russell, as may be seen by the protocol of the confer- 
ence of the 1st December, 1814, and by the letter from the Ameri- 
can to the British plenipotentiaries, of 14th December, 1814. In 
that letter, already communicated to the House, the American ple- 
nipotentiaries, referring to the article in question, expressly say : 
" To such an ai'ticle, which they viewed as merely declaratory, the 
Tindersip'ned had no objection, and have offered to accede :" and to 
that letter the name of Mr. Russell is subscribed. ' * 

At the time when the letter from Paris was written, or within a 
few days thereafter, all the colleagues, whose conduct it so severe- 
ly censures, in relation to measures, to which Mr. Russell's sanction 
and signature stood equally pledged with their own, were at Paris, 
and in habits of almost daily intercourse with him. They little sus- 
pected the colouring which he was privately giving, without com- 
munication of it to them, of their conduct and opinions, to the heads 
of the government, by whom he and they had been jointly employ- 
ed in a public trust of transcendent importance ; or the uses to 
which this denunciation of them was afterwards to be turned. 

Had the existence of this letter from Paris been, at the time when 
it was written, known to the majority of the mission, at whose pro- 
posal this offer had been made ; to that majority, who believed that 
the article was perfectly compatible with their instructions, con- 
sistent with the argument maintained by the mission, important for 
securin"-a very essential portion of the right to the fisheries, and in 
nowise affecting unfavourably the interest of any section of the 
Union, they would doubtless have felt that its contents called much 
more forcibly upon them, to justify to their own government them- 



91 

selves and their motives for making that proposal, than Mr. Rus- 
sell could be called upon to justify himself for merely having been 
in the minority upon the question whether an article should be pro- 
posed, which he did actually concur in proposing, and which the 
adverse party had not thought worth accepting. 

The writer of these remarks is not authorized to speak for his 
colleagues of the majority; one of whom is now alike beyond the 
reach of censure and panegyrick ; and the other, well able, when 
he shall meet this disclosure, to defend himself. But he believes 
of them what he affirms of himself, that had they entertained of the 
projected article, and of the argument maintained by the mission, 
the sentiments avowed in either of the variations of Mr. Russell's 
letter from Paris, no consideration would have induced them to con- 
cur in proposing it, or to subscribe their names to a paper declar- 
ing that they had no objection to it. 

Still less, if possible, would they have thought it reconcileable 
with their duty to their country, had they entertained those senti- 
ments, to have subscribed, on the 25th of December, 1814, the 
joint letter of the mission to the Secretary of State, already com- 
municated to Congress, and on the same day to have written the 
separate and secret letter, fore-announcing that of 11th of Februa- 
ry, 1815, from Paris. 

Besides the memorable variation between the original and du- 
plicate of the letter of 11th February, 1816, which has been exhi- 
bited in parallel passages extracted from them, there are others not 
less remarkable. In the course of the duplicate, the total and un- 
qualified abandonment of the rights of the poor tishermen, is com- 
pensated by an eloquent panegyric upon their usefulness to the 
country, their hardy industry, their magnanimous enterprise, and 
their patriotic self-devotion. Little of this appears in the original; 
and that little, in the after-thought of a postscript. Towards the 
close of the duplicate, the Sj)irit of prophecy takes possession of the 
writer. By his " trust in God, and in the valour of the West," he 
foresees the victory of Creneral Jackson at New-Orleans. He fore- 
sees the convention between the United States and Great Britain, 
of October, 1818. In the original there is no prophecy — no " trust 
in God, and in the valour of the West." 

With ail these varieties the two copies of the letter form an ela- 
borate and deeply meditated dissertation to prove : 

1. That the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, 
of 1783, the treaty which upon its face is a treaty of independ- 
ence, a treaty of boundaries, a treaty of partition, as well as a 
treaty of peace — was, in his estimation, all his signatures at 
Ghent to the contrary notwithstanding, a mere treaty of peace, 
totally abrogated by the war of 1812. 

2, That the same treaty, was a treaty sui generis, consisting of 
two part's ; one, of rights appertaining to sovex'eignty and in- 
dependence ; and the other, of special grants and privileges ; 
of which the former were permanent, and the lattf^r abrogated 
"by the wa;' 



92 

3. That the principles assumed, and the argument maintained, 
by the majority of the Ghent Mission, and to which he had 
subscribed his name in all the joint communications of the 
Mission, as well to the British plenipotentiaries as to his own 
government, were a mass of errors, inconsistencies, and absur- 
dities. 

4. That the offer to the British plenipotentiaries of a right to the 
British to navigate the Mississippi, was, in the opinion of the 
majority, and also in his own opinion, permitted by our in- 
structions, and in no ways violated them. 

5. That the same offer was directly contrary to the construction 
given by the majority to their instructions, and, as he had 
always thought, and still thought, contrary to explicit and 
implicit, express and unqualitied prohibitions, in those instruc- 
tions. 

6. That the offer of the right to navigate the Mississippi, as an 
equivalent for the fisheries, was the offer of an excessive price, 
for a privilege worth little or nothing. 

7. That, extravagant as that offer (to which he signed a letter 
declaring that he had no objection) was, it was rejected by 
the adverse party ; because they thought it an offer of the 
dead for the living ; or because, they hoped to get still more 
for the worthless privilege ; or, because, they expected to 
take and keep Louisiana, and thus get the navigation of the 
Mississippi for nothing; or, because, they were blinded by the 
unhappy passions incident to war ; but that he foresaw^ that 
they would hereafter grant all the valuable part of the same 
worthless privilege for nothing. 

3. That there wa& no sort of relation whatsoever between a 
privilege for the British to navigate in waters within our ju- 
risdiction, and a privilege for us to fish in waters within Bri- 
tish jurisdiction ; because one of these privileges had beea 
stipulated in the third, and the other in the eighth article, of 
the treaty of 1783 ; and therefore, that it was absurd to offer 
one as an equivalent for the other. 
9. Lastly, that the offer to the British of the right to navigate 
the Mississippi, was pregnant with mischief to the western 
country — to " the unqff'ending citizens of an immense tract of 
*' territory, not at all, or but faintly benefited by the fishing 
" privilege, merely to provide for the doubtful accommodation 
" of a iG.w fishermen, annually decreasing in number, in a re- 
" mote quarter, and entirely exempt from the danger." 
L^pon most of these points, so far as argument is concerned, it 
might, upon the mere statement of iVlr. Russell's positions, be left 
to his ingenuity to refute itself. His first and second points, with 
regard to the character of the treaty of 1783, considered as doc- 
trines, are evidently inconsistent with each other. The variation 
between the original and duplicate of his letter upon the fourth and 
fifth points, is something more than inconsistency ; something more 



93 

even than self-eontradiction. The whole letter is a laborious tis- 
sue of misrepresentation of every part of its subject ; of the con- 
duct and sentiments of his colleagues who constituted the majority 
of the mission ; and of his own conduct and sentiments in opposi- 
tion to them. It substantially charges them with deliberate and 
wanton violation, in the face of his solemn warning, of the positive 
and unequivocal instructions of their government, for the sake of 
sacrificing the interest, the peace, the comfortable existence of the 
whole western country, to the doubtful accommodation of a few 
eastern fishermen, and in support of a claim to which they had not 
the shadow of a right. 

1 say it is a tissue of misrepresentations — of the subject, of the 
conduct and sentiments of his colleagues, and of his own conduct 
in opposition to them. 

1. Of the subject. IMr. Russell represents the offer of an article, 
granting to the British the right of navigating the Mississippi, as an 
equivalent for the grant of a fishing privilege in British jurisdic- 
tion, as if it had been a separate and insulated proposal of new 
grants, in a distinct article, without reference to the state of the ne- 
gotiation at the time when it was made, to the occasion upon which 
it was made, and to the considerations by which it was induced. 

Mr. Russell represents the article as if oftered under circum- 
stances, when it was, by both parties, acknowledged that the British 
had no claim to territory, to the Mississippi. This is a direct and 
positive perversion of the whole statement of the subject. 

Mr. Russell represents the offer of a right to navigate the Mis- 
sissippi, and of access to it from the British territories as general 
and unqualified ; as giving access to British traders and British em- 
issaries to every part of the western country, and to intercourse 
with all our Indians. The proposal was, of a limited access from 
a single spot of the British territory, to the river, for the purpose 
of navigating the river with merchandise, upon which the duties 
of import should have been first paid. 

In consequence of these misrepresentations, Mr. Russell brings in 
British smugglers, British emissaries, and all the horrors of Indian 
warfare, upon the western country, as necessary inferences from a 
proposal, not that which was made, but that into which it is dis- 
torted by his misrepresentations. 

2. Of the conduct and sentiments of his colleagues. 

Mr. Russell represents his colleagues as having deliberately, 
and against his declared opinion, violated both the letter and the 
spirit of their most explicit and implicit, express and unequivocal, 
instructions from their own government. He charges them, also, 
with having violated their own construction of their instructions. 

It is true that, in another reading of the same letter, purporting 
to have been written on the same day, he acquits them entirely of 
all violation of their instructions, and declares he had always been 
of that opinion. 

1» 



94 

Bfr. Russell ascribes to his colleagues opinions which they never 
entertained, arguments which they never advanced, and doctrines 
which they not only would disclaim with indignation, but diametri- 
cally opposbte to those which they did maintain. He imputes to 
them the opinion that the Independence of the United States was 
derived only from the treaty of peace of 1783, and that all the 
rights stipulated by it, in favour of the people of the United States, 
were mere grants from tlie crown of England. This vvas the 
British doctrine, which Mr. Russell well knew his colleagues re- 
jected witli <lisdain, but which he himself countenances by main- 
taining the British side of the argument, that the fishing liberty, 
stipulated in the treaty of 1783, was abrogated ipso facto by the 
war of 1 8 1 2. 

He imputes to them, as an inconsistency with their other imput- 
ed opinion, that they rested their claim to the fishing privilege, 
upon prescriplion ; and this notwithstanding all the light of learn- 
ing with which he had irradiated them, from the lucid sources of 
'■'■jus merm facidtutis ;" of" nltra memoriam hominis ;'''' of '■'milium 
tempus occurrit rcgi ;'' and of the imprescriptible character of fish- 
eries. Of all this not one word was said at Ghent. The majori- 
ty never asserted the right of the fishing privilege, as resting upon 
the right of prescription ; nor had they ever the benefit of Mr. 
Russell's learned labours to prove that it was not apphcable to the 
subject. 

3. Of his own conduct and sentiments, in opposition to those of 
the majority of his colleagues. 

The parallel passages from the original and duplicate of his let- 
ter remove all necessity for further proof of this. But that is not 
all. Throughout the letter, Mr. Russell holds himself forth as 
having been the intrepid and inflexible asserter and supporter of 
the rights of the West, against the majority of his colleagues ; as 
having, by a painful struggle, obtained a conquest over his early 
prejudices and local partialities, and enlarged his intellectual facul- 
ties and patriotism, to become the champion and vindicator of the 
interests of the West. Of all this, nothing was made known to bis 
colleagues of the majority at Ghent. The article to which his 
letter conjures up such formidable objections was drawn up and 
proposed lo the mission by a distinguished citizen of the western • 
country. It was opposed by another citizen from the same section 
of the Union. Of the five members of the mission Mr. Russell 
was the person who took the least part in the discussion. He nei- 
ther objected that it was contrary to our instructions, nor depre- 
ciated the value of the fisheries ; nor painted the dangers of British 
smugglers and emissaries, or the horrors of Indian warfare, as im- 
pending over the unofending inhabitants of the western country 
Irom the measure. He gave, it may be, a silent vote against pro- 
posing the article ; and, when it was determined by the majority 
to propose it, concurred in proposing it ; was present at the con- 
ferences with the British plenipotentiaries when it was proposed 



95 

to and discussed wit!) them, and heard from thpm the reasons whicjb 
induced them to reject it, which reasons did not embrace one oi' 
those which he has so severely tasked his sagacity to devise for 
them ; but, phiinly and simply, because they said it was clogged 
with conditions which made it of no value to them, or, at least, not 
of value to induce them to concede that our fishing liberties, within 
British jurisdiction, should continue, in return : and he afterwards 
signed a letter to the British plenipotentiaries, together with all the 
other members of the mission, declaring that they had no objection 
to the article, considering it as merely declaratory. 

If Mr. Russell had entertained at Ghent the sentiments relating 
to this measure, disclosed in the duplicate, or even those avowed 
in the original of his letter, he is to account for it to his conscience 
and his country, that he ever assented to it at all. He was not 
under the slightest obligation to assent to it. As an act of the ma- 
jority, it would have been equally valid without his concurrence 
or signature as with it. More than one member of the mission, 
and on more than one occasion, signified his determination to de- 
cline signing the treaty, if particular measures, proposed by the 
British plenipotentiaries, should be acceded to by the majority. A 
refusal by any one member to concur in any measure upon which 
a majority were agreed, would at least have induced the majyity 
to re-consider their vote, and in all probability to have cancelled it. 
In a case of such transcendent importance as this, of high interests, 
generous policy, humane and tender sympathies, wantonly to be 
sacrificed, in defiance of the most express and unqualified instruC" 
tions, to the paltry purpose of accommodating a (ew fishermen, des- 
titute of all claim of right, how couhl Mr. Russell sit patiently in 
conference with the British plenipotentinries, and join in the offer 
of it to them ? How could he subscribe his name to a letter declar- 
ing he had no objection to it ? Had Mr. Russell dissented from thisf 
measure of the majority, and they had still persisted in it, he would 
doubtless have reported to his own government the reasons of his 
dissent ; his colleagues of the majority would in like manner have 
reported theirs ; and the responsibility of each party would have 
rested, as it ought, upon their respective acts. To concur individu- 
ally in the measure ; to sign all the papers approving it; and thea 
secretly to write to the government a letter of censure, reproach, 
and misrepresentation, against it and those who proposed it — waSj, 
indeed, a shorter and easier process. 

Mr. Russell, therefore, did not entertain or express at Ghent, 
the opinions disclosed in his letter from Paris, and has been as un- 
fortunate in the representation of his own conduct and sentiments, 
as in that of the subject of his letter, and in that of the sentiments 
and conduct of his colleagues. 

But there is a point of view more important than any regard to 
his conduct and sentiments, in which his letter is yet to be consi' 
dered. If there were any force in his argument against the mea- 



96 

sures, or any correctness in his statements against his colleague?, 
it is proper they should be sifted and examined. 

Let, us, therelore, examine the proposed article in both its 
parts : — first, as relates to the fishing liberty for us ; and secondly, 
to the navigation of the Mississippi by the British. And, in order 
to ascertain the propriety of the principles assumed, and of the 
measures adopted by the American commissioners, as now in 
question, let us premise the state of things as they existed, and the 
circumstances under wtiich this proposal was offered. 

By the third article of the treaty of 1 783, it was agreed, that the 
people of the United States should continue to enjoy the fisheries 
of Newfoundland and the Bay of St. Lawrence, and at all other 
places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries iiscd at 
ajiy time theretofore tofisk; and, also, that they should have certain 
fishing liberties, on all the fishing coast within the British jurisdic- 
tion of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador. The title 
by which the United States held those fishing rights and liberties 
was the same. It was the possessory use of the right, or, in Mr. 
Russell's more learned phrase, of the ^' jus mer(efacnltatis" at 
any time theretofore as British subjects, and the acknowledgment 
by Great Britain of its continuance in the people of the United 
States after the treaty of separation. It was a national right ; and, 
therefore, as much a right, though not so immediate an interest, to 
the people of Ohio and Kentucky, aye and to the people of Loui- 
siana, after ihey became a part of the people of the United States, 
as it was to the people of Massachusetts and Maine. The latter 
had always used it, since they had been British colonists, and the 
coasts had been in British dominions. But, as the settlement of the 
colonies themselves had not been of time immemorial, it was not. 
and never was pretended to be, a title by prescription. 

Such was the title of the United States to the fisheries — prior 
possession, and acknowledgment by the treaty of 1783. 

The commissioners at Ghent had received from the Secretary of 
State a letter of instruction, dated 25th of June, 1814, containing 
the following passage : 

" Information has been received from a quarter deserving of at- 
" tention, that the late events in France have produced such an 
" effect on the British government, as to make it probable that a 
" demand will be made at Gothenburg, to surrender our right to the 
'' fisheries, to abandon all trade beyond the Cape of Good Hope, 
"and to cede Louisiana to Spain. We cannot believe that such a 
" demand will be made ; should it be, you will of course, treat it 
" as it deserves. These rights must not be brought into discussion. 
*' If insisted on, your negotiations will cease." 

Now, it is very true that a majority of the commissioners did 
construe these instructions to mean, that the right to the fisheries 
was not to be surrendered. They did not subtilize, and refine, and 
inquire, whether they could not surrender a part, and yet not bring 
the right into discussion, whether we might not give up a liberty, 



97 

and yet retain a right ; or whether it was an argument, or an agree- 
ment, that was forbidden. They understood, that the fisheries wer« 
not to be surrendered. 

The demand made by the British government was first advanced 
in an artful and ensnaring form. It was by assuming the principle 
that the right had been forfeited by the war, and by notifying the 
American commissioners, as they did at the first conference, " that 
"the British government did not intend to grant io the United 
" States, gratuitously, the privileges formerly granted by treaty to 
*' them, of fishing within the limits of the British sovereignty, and 
"of using the shores of the British territories for purposes con- 
" nected with the fisheries." Now to obtain the surrender of thus 
much of the fisheries, all that the British plenipotentiaries could 
possibly desire, was, that the American commissioners should ac- 
quiesce in the principle, that the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by 
the war. Assent to this principle would have been surrender of 
the right. Mr. Kussell, if we can make any thing of his argument, 
would have assented, .onA surrendered, and comforted himself with 
the reflection, that, as the right h?.d not been brought into discus- 
sion, the instructions would not have been violated. 

But, however clearly he expresses this opinion in his letter, and 
however painfully he endeavours to fortify it by argument, he ne- 
ver did disclose it to the same extent at Ghent. The only way in 
which it was possible to meet the notification of the British pleni- 
potentiaries, without surrendering the rights which it jeopardized, 
was by denying the principle upon which it was founded. This 
was done by asserting the principle, that the treaty of Independ- 
ence of 1783 was of that class of treaties, and the right in question 
of the character, which are not abrogated by a subsequent war ; 
that the notification of the intention of the British government not 
to renew the grant, could not affect the right of the United States, 
which had not been forfeited by the M'ar ; and that, considering it 
as still in force, the United States needed no new grant from Great 
Britain to revive, nor any new article to confirm it. 

This principle I willingly admit was assumed and advanced by 
the American commissioners at my suggestion. I believed it not 
only indispensably necessary to meet the insidious form in which 
the British demand of surrender had been put forth ; but sound in 
itself, and maintainable on the most enlarged, humane, and gener- 
ous principles of international law. It was asserted and maintained 
by the American plenipotentiaries at Ghent ; and if, in the judg- 
ment of Mr. Russell, it suffered the fishing liberty to be brought 
into discussion, at least it did not surrender the right. 

It was not acceded to by the British plenipotentiaries. Each 
party adhered to its asserted principle ; and the treaty was conclud- 
ed without settling the interest involved in it. Since that time, 
and after the original of Mr. Russell's letter of the 11th February, 
1815, was written, the principle asserted by the American pleni- 
potentiaries at Ghent, has been still asserted and maintained through 
Jyvo long and arduous negotiations with GreatBritain, and has passed 



98 

the ordeal of minds of no inferior ability. It has terminated in a 
new and satisfactory arrangement of the great interest connected 
with it, and in a substantial admission of the principle asserted by 
the American plenipotentiaries at Ghent ; by that convention of 
20th October, 1818, which, according to the duplicate of Mr. Rus- 
sell's letter, he foresaw in February, 1815, even while writing his 
learned dissertation against the right which he had been instructed 
not to surrender, and the only principle by which it could be de» 
fended. 

At this time, and after all the controversy through which the 
American principle was destined to pass, and has passed, I, with- 
out hesitation, reassert, in the face of my country, the principle, 
which, in defence of the fishing liberties of this nation, was, at my 
suggestion, asserted by the American plenipotentiaries at Ghent. 

1 deem this reassertion of it the more important, because, by the 
publication at this time of Mr. Russell's letter, that plenipotentiary 
has not only disclaimed all his share in the first assertion of it, but 
has brought to bear all the faculties of his mind against it, while the 
American side of the argument, and the reasons by which it has 
been supported against arguments coinciding much with those of 
his letter, but advanced by British reasoners, are not before the 
public. The principle is yet important to great interests, and to 
the future welfare of this country. 

When first suggested, it obtained the unanimous assent of the 
American mission. In their note of 10th November, 1814, to the 
British plenipotentiaries, which acccmpanied their first projet of a 
treaty, they said, " in answer to the declaration made by the Bri- 
" tish plenipotentiaries respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, 
" referring to what passed iu the conference of the 9th August, can 
" only state, that they are not authorized to bring into discussion 
" any of the rights or liberties which the United States have here- 
" tofore enjoyed in relation thereto. From their nature, and from 
" the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, by which they were 
" recognised, no further stipulation has been deemed necessary by 
♦' the government of the United States, to entitle them to the full 
•' enjoyment of all of them." This paragraph was drawn up, and 
proposed to the mission by the member with whom Mr. Russell 
concurred in objecting to the proposal of an article confirmative of 
the fishing liberties and navigation of the Mississippi, and as a sub- 
stitute for it. The mission unanimously accepted it : and the fish- 
ing liberties being thus secured from surrender, no article relating 
to them or to the Mississippi was inserted in the projet sent to the 
British mission. 

But one of the objects of the negotiation was to settle the bound- 
ary between the United States and the British dominions, from the 
northwest corner of the Lake of the Woods westward. That 
boundary, by the treaty of 1783, had been stipulated to be, " from 
" the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods on a due 
" west course to the river Mississippi ; and thence, down the mid- 



99 

die of the Mississippi, to the thirty-first degree of north latitude ;" 
while, by the eighth article of the same treaty, it had been stipulat- 
ed, that " the navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to 
" the ocean, should forever remain free and open to the subjects of 
" Great Britain and the citizens of the United States." 

The right of Great Britain and of the United States, at the time 
of the treaty of 1783, to make this stipulation with regard to the 
navigation of the Mississippi, might be, and afterwards was, ques- 
tioned by Spain, then a possessor also of territories upon the same 
river, and indeed of both its banks, from its mouth to a higher la- 
titude than that thus stipulated as the boundary of the United 
States. But, as, between Great Britain and the United States, 
there could, at the time of the conclusion of the treaty of 1783, be 
no possible question of the right of both to make the stipulation, 
the boundary line itself being in substance a concession of territory 
to the river, and down its middle to latitude 31, which Great Britaia 
was undoubtedly competent to make, and the United States to re- 
ceive. Now, the United States having received the cession and the 
boundary, with the right to navigate the river, with the express 
condition that the navigation of the river should forever remain 
free and open to British subjects, and having expressly assented 
to that condition, without considering it as infringing upon any right 
of Spain ; they could not, consistently with good faith, by acquiring 
afterwards the right of Spain, allege that this acquisition absolved 
them from the obligation of the prior engagement with Great Bri- 
tain. There is, indeed, in Mr Russell's letter, a hesitating argu- 
ment to that effect ; the odious character of which is but flimsily 
veiled by its subtlety. The United States had always insisted upoa 
their right of navigating the Mississippi, by force of the article of 
the treaty of 1783, and had obtained the acknowledgment of that 
right from Spain herself, many years before they acquired her ter- 
ritorial right by the purchase of Louisiana. With what front, then, 
could an American negotiator have said, after the latter period, to 
a British minister : — You have no right to the navigation of the 
Mississippi ; for although, on receiving from you a part of the river, 
we expressly stipulated that you should forever enjoy aright to its 
navigation, yet that engagement was a fraud upon the rights of 
Spain ; and although, long before we had acquired these rights of 
Spain, she had acknowledged oiir right to navigate the river, found- 
ed upon this very stipulation of which you now claim the benefit, 
yet I will now not acknowledge your right founded on the sam* 
stipuiition. Spain, no party to the compact between you and me, 
after controverting it as infringing upon her rights, finally acceded 
to its beneficial application to us, as compatible with those rights. 
But we, who made the compact with you, having now acquired the 
adverse rights of Spain, will not allow you the beneficial use of our 
own compact. We fin=t swindled and then bullied Spain out of her 
rights, by this eighth article of the treaty of 1783 ; and now. hav- 
ing acquired ourselves those rights, we plead them for holding our 
ens-ageraont with voa for a dead letter. 



100 

This, and nothing more or less than this, is the substance of Mr. 
Russell's argument to show, that perhaps the United States were, 
by the acquisition of Louisiana, absolved from the obligation of the 
eighth article of the treaty of 1783, even before the war of 1812. 

But, says Mr. Russell, the treaty of 1783 was made, under a be- 
lief of both parties, that it would leave Great Britain with a portioa 
of territory upon the Mississippi, and therefore entitled to claim the 
right of navigating the river. But the boundary line of the treaty 
of 1783, was a line from the northwesternmost point of the Lake of 
the Woods, due west to the Mississippi. And after the treaty of 
1783, but before the war of 1812, it had been found that a line due 
west, from the northwest corner of the Lake of the Woods, did not 
strike the Mississippi. Therefore, continues Mr. Russell, Great 
Britain could claim no territorial right to the navigation of the ri- 
ver ; and therefore 'had no longer any claim to the benefit of the 
eighth article of the treaty of 1783. 

To this it may be replied : First, that the British claim of right 
to navigate the Mississippi, was not founded solely on the territory 
which it was believed they v.-ould retain upon that river, by the 
boundary west from the Lake of the Woods. The eighth article 
of the treaty of 1783, was a separate and distinct article, stipulat- 
ing the right of both nations to navigate the river, without any re- 
ference to boundary or to territory. But the boundary, the ter- 
ritory, and the right to navigate the river, were all, in that treaty, 
cessions from Great Britain to the United States. And, had it even 
been the intention of both parties, that Britain should cede the 7i)hole 
of her territories on the Mississippi, it was yet competent to her to 
reserve the right of navigating the river for her subjects, in common 
ivith the people of the United States, and competent for the United 
States to accept the cession, subject to that reservation. They did 
so, by the eighth article of the treaty. And in this point of view, 
the British right of navigating the river, within the American ter- 
ritory, was precisely similar to the .\merican liberty of fishing 
within the British territorial jurisdiction, reserved by the third ar- 
ticle of the same treaty. 

But, secondly, the discovery that a line due west, <Vom the north- 
westernmost corner of the Lake of the Woods, would not strike 
the Mississippi, had not deprived Great Britain of all claim to terri- 
tory upon that river, at the time of the negotiation at Ghent. The 
line described in the treaty was, from the northwcsterrnost point 
of the Lake ef the Woods, " on a due west course to the r'wer Alis- 
sissippi." When it was found that the line due tces^ did not touch 
the Mississippi, this boundary was annulled by the fact. It re- 
mained an unsettled boundary, to be adjusted by a new agreement. 
For this adjustment, the moral obligation of the parties was to adopt 
such a line as should approximate as near as possible to the inten- 
tions of both parties in agreeing upon the line for which it was to 
be substituted. For ascertaining this line, if the United States 
were entitled to the benefit of the words " ou a due west course,'* 



101 

Britain was equally entitled to the benefit of the words " to the ri- 
ver Mississippi." Both the demands stood on the same grounds. 
Before the war of 1812, three abortive attempts had been made by 
the parties to adjust this boundary. The first was by the treaty of 
1794, when it was already conjectured, but not ascertained, that 
the line due west from the lake would not intersect the Mississippi. 
By the fourth article of the treaty of 1794, it was agreed that a joint 
survey should be made to ascertain the tact ; and that, if, on the 
result of that survey, it should appear, that the west line would not 
intersecl the river, the parties would proceed, " by amicable nego- 
" tiation, to regulate the boundary line in that quarter, according to 
" justice and mutual convenience, and in conformity to the intent 
*' of the treaty of 1783." This survey was never made. The 
second attempt to adjust the line, was by the convention signed on 
the 12th of IVIay, 1803, by Mr. King and lord Hawkesbury ; the 
fifth article of vvhich, after reciting the same uncertainty, whether 
a line drawn due west from the Lake of the Woods would intersect 
the Mississippi, provided that, instead of the said line, the bounda- 
ry of the United States, in that quarter, should, and was declared 
to be, tJie shortest line which could be drawn het~<£een the northwest 
point of the Lake of the Woods, and the nearest source of the river Mis- 
sissippi. This convention not having been ratified, the third at- 
tempt at adjustment had been made in the negotiation of Mr. Monroe 
and Mr. Pinkney, of 1806 and 1807 ; at which an article had been 
proposed and agreed to, that the line should be from the most 
northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, to the 49th parallel 
of latitude, and from that point, due west, along and with the said 
parallel, as far as the respective territories extend in that quarter. 
And with that article was coupled another, as follows : 

" It is agreed by the United States that his majesty's subjects 
" shall have, at all times, free access from his majesty's aforesaid 
" territories, by land or inland navigation, into the aforesaid terri- 
" tories of the United States, to the river Mississippi, with the 
" goods and effects of his majesty's said subjects, in order to enjoy 
" the benefit of the navigation of that river, as secured to them by 
" the treaty of peace, between his majesty and the United Stales, 
" and also by the third article of the treaty of amity, commerce, 
" and navigation, of 1794. And it is further agreed; that his ma- 
" jesty's subjects shall, in like manner, and at ail times, have iVee 
" access to all the waters and rivers falling into the western side of 
" the river Mississippi, andtotiie navigation of the said river " 

This negotiation, was suspended, by a change of the British mi- 
nistry, and was not afterwards resumed, iiutthe following obser- 
vations upon the two articles, contained in a letter from Mr. Madi- 
son to Messrs. Monroe and Pinknciy, of 30th July, ! 807, show how 
far Mr. Jefferson, then President of the United States, had author- 
ized those commissioners to accede to them. 

" Access by land or inland na-zigation from the British territo- 
'' ries, through the territory of the United States to the river Mi^- 



102 

'* sissippi, is not to be allowed to British subjects, witb their goods 
" or effects, unless such articles shall have paid all the duties, and 
" be within all the custooi- house regulations, applicable to goode 
" and etfects of citizens of the United States. An access through 
" the territory of the United States to the waters running into the 
" western side of the Mississippi, is under no modification whatev- 
" er to be stipulated to British subjects." 

Such then was the state of things in relation to this interest in 
question, at the time when the war of 1812 broke out ; and at the 
negotiation of Ghent, the same question of boundary again occurred 
for adjustment. The right of the British to a line from the Lake 
of the Woods to the Mississippi, had never been renounced : and, 
at the last negotiation between the parties, four years after the 
United States had acquired Louisiana, and with it all the Spanish 
rights upon the Mississippi, the British goveroment, in assenting 
to take the 49th parallel of latitude, as a substitute for the line to 
the Mississippi, had expressly re-stipulated for the free navigation 
of the river, and free access to it from our territories ; to both of 
which Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney had been explicitly authorized 
lo accede. 

Under this stale of things, it had never been admitted by the Bri- 
tish, nor could we maintain against them by argument, even that 
the Mississippi river was within our exclusive jurisdiction : for so 
long as they had a right by treaty to a line of boundary to that ri- 
ver, and consequently to territory upon it, they also had jurisdic- 
tion upon it ; nor, consequently, could the instructions of 15th 
April, 1813, had they even been still in full force, have restricted 
the American commissioners from making or receiving a proposi- 
tion, for continuing to the British the right of navigating the river^ 
which they had enjoyed, without ever using it, from the time of 
the treaty of 1783, when the United States had received, by cession 
from them, the right of enjoying it jointly with them. 

Bearing in mind this state of things, we are also to remember, 
that, in the conference of 19th August, 1814, and in the letter of 
that date, from the British to the American plenipotentiaries, [See 
Wait's State Papers, vol. IX. pp. 334 and 338,) they had claimed a 
new northwestern boundary line from LaJze Superior to the Missis- 
sippi, and the frpe navigation of that river. To this the American 
commissioners had answered on the 24th of August, 1814: The 
undersigned perceive that the British government " propose, with- 
" out purpose sj)ecitically alleged, to draw the boundary line west- 
" ward, not from the Lake of the Woods, as it now is, but from 
" Lake Superior:" and they objected to it, as demanding a cession 
of territory. 

The British plenipotentiaries, on the 4th September, 1814, re- 
plied : 

" As the necessity for fixing some boundary for the northwestern 
'* frontier has been mutually acknoivledged, a proposal for a discus- 
'* sion on that subject cannot be considered as a demand for a ces- 



103 

> sion of territory , unless the United States are prepared to assert 
' that there is m> limit to their territories in that direction, and that, 
•' availing; themselves of the geographical error upon which that 
' part of the treaty of 1783 was founded, they will acknowledge 
■■' no boundary whatever, then, unquestionably, any proposition to 
•' fix one, be it wliat it may, must be considered as demanding u 
•' large cession of territory from the United States, 

" Is the American government prepared to assert such an unli- 
*' mited right, so contrary to the evident intention of the treaty it- 
♦' self? Or, is his majesty's government to understand that the 
*' American plenipotentiaries are willing to acknowledge the bound- 
" ary from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, (the arranger 
" mentmade by a convention in 1803, but not ratified,) as that by 
*' which their government is ready to abide ? 

" The British plenipotentiaries are instructed to accept favour- 
'* ably such a proposition, or to discuss any other line of boundary 
♦' which maybe submitted for consideration." 

I stop here for a moment, to observe h-^w instinctively, if the 
expression may be allowed, both the parties in this correspondence 
recur to the treaty of 1783, with a consciousness that it was yet in 
full force, as an appeal for either in support of its claims. The ex- 
pression in the above American note, applied to the boundary, " as 
it now is ;" the reference of the British note to the geographical 
error in the treaty of 1783, and their willingness to discuss the ar- 
rangement of 1803, (the shortest line from the Lake of the Woods 
to the Mississippi,) both acknowledge the treaty of 1783 as the basis 
of all proposition and all argument, and as being yet in force for 
every thing which should uotbe otherwise provided for i,n the new 
treaty. 

In their note of 21st October, 1814, the British commissionerg 
said : 

" On the subject of the fisheries, the undersigned expressed with 
" so much frankness, at the conference already referred to, the 
" views of their government, that they consider any further observ- 
" ations on that topic as unnecessary at the present time, 

" On the question of the boundary betvr-een the dominions of his 
" majesty and those of the United States, the undersigned are led 
" to expect, from the discussion which this subject has already uut 
" dergone, thai the northwestern boundary, from the Lake of th^ 
" Woods to the Mississippi, (the intended arrangement of 1803,) 
" will be admitted without objection." 

Thus stood the parties and the subject, when, on the 10th of 
November, 1814, the American plenipotentiaries sent the first pro- 
jet of a treaty to the British commissioners. It contained no arti- 
cle relating either to the fisheries or to the Mississippi ; but, in the 
note which accompanied it, to meet the notification twice given on 
the part of tbe British government, that they did not intend to, 
grant, without equivalent, the liberty of fishing within the British 
jurisdiction, the counter-notification, already noticed, was introdui^-s 



104 

ed, informing them that the American g;overnment did not consider 
the tishing liberties as forfeited by the war, and that they would re- 
main in full force without needing any new grant to confirm them. 
At this stage of the negotiation, therefore, the American plenipo- 
tentiaries did actually pursue the first of those three other ways of 
proceeding, which Mr. Russell, in the postscript to the original of 
his letter of 11th February, 1815, says they might have taken, and 
to which he adds that he would have assented, namely, to contend 
for the continuance of the fishing privilege, notwithstanding the 
war, without saying any thing about the navigation of the Missis- 
sippi. It cannot but'be surprising to find Mr. Russell, within three 
months after these events, writing privately to the Secretary of 
State, stating this as a course other than that which we had pur- 
sued, and that he would have assented to it if we had ; when it was 
the very course that we did pursue, and he had assented to it. We 
did contend, not for the indestructibility , as Mr. Russell terms it, of 
the treaty of 17H3, but that, from its peculiar character, it was not 
abrogated by the mere occurrence of war. We never maintained 
that the treaty of 1783 was indestructible, or imperishable, but that 
the rights, liberties, and boundaries, acknowledged by it as belong- 
ing to us, were not abrogated by mere war. We never doubted, 
for example, that we might be compelled to stipulate a new bound- 
ary ; but that would have been, not as a consequence of mere war, 
but the etfect of conquest, resulting from war. The difference be- 
tween our principle and that of the British was, that they, consider- 
ing the rights acknowledged as belonging to us by the treaty, as 
mere graiits, held them as annulled by war alone ; while we, vieiv- 
ing them as rights existing before the treaty, and only acknowledg- 
ed by it, could not admit them to be forfeited without our own as- 
sent. Britain might have recovered them by conquest ; but that 
could not. be consummated without our acquiescence, tacit or ex- 
pressed. Mr. Russell, who assented to our principle, and asserted 
it with us, now says he always thought the British principle was the 
true one. If the xAmerican mission, at that trying time, had acted 
upon it, he never would have prophesied the convention of October, 
1818. 

The eighth article of the projet of a treaty, sent by the Ameri« 
can commissioners on the loth of November, offered the bounda- 
ry which had been proposed in 1807, a line north or south to lati- 
tude 49, and westward, on that parallel, as far as the territories of 
the two countries extended ; and said nothing about the Mississip- 
pi. But when, on the 26ih of November, the British plenipoten- 
tiaries returned the projet, with their proposed amendments, they 
accepted the 49th parallel, westward, from the Lake of the Woods, 
for the boundary, but with the following addition to the article : 
" And it is further agreed, the subjects of his Br|||||nnic majesty 
" shall at all times have access, from his Britannic mijesty's terri- 
*' tories, by land or inland navigation, into the aforesaid territories 
" of the United states to the river Mississippi, with their goods. 



105 

«' effects, atid merchandise, and that his Britannic majesty's subjects 
*' shall have and enjoy the free navigation of the said river.'' 

It was to meet this demand that, at the conference of 1st Decem- 
ber, the American plenipotentiaries proposed to strike out all those 
words, and to substitute the amendment contained in the protocol of 
that conference, already communicated to Congress. It was thus 
that the relation which Mr, Russell, within three months after- 
wards, so singularly professes not to perceive between the fishing 
liberties and the Mississippi navigation, not only naturally arose, 
but forced itself upon the American plenipotentiaries. They had 
saved the fishing liberties from surrender, as they had been spe- 
cially instructed to do, Dy asserting that the treaty of 1783 had not 
been abrogated ipsofado by the war. Two days before receiving 
this counter projet, they had received from Washington a fresh in- 
struction, expressly authorizing them to conclude a treaty on the 
basis of the status ante bellum, including, of course, the fishing li- 
berty on one side, and the navigation of the Mississippi on the other. 
They could not, therefore, consistently with those instructions, 
either reject this British demand, or abandon to surrender the fish- 
eries. They ofi'ered, therefore, the amendment containing the re- 
newed acknowledgment of both ; and they said to the British ple- 
nipotentiaries : We have told you that we consider all the rights, 
secured to us by the treaty of 1783, as still in force. What we 
demand, if you assent to it, we must yield in return. If, as we say, 
the treaty of 1783 is yet in force, you" have the right of navigating 
the Mississippi, and we have the fishing rights and liberties unim- 
paired. If, as you say, the treaty is abrogated, how can you claim 
the right of navigating the Mississippi ? You must admit the one, 
or not demand the other. We offer you the alternative of a new 
stipulated admission of both, or a total omission of both. We offer 
you in application the choice of our principle or of your own. 

The British commissioners took the proposal for reference to 
their government, by whom it was immediately rejected. But, to 
show how anxious they were to obtain from us the surrender of our 
fishing liberties, and how cheaply they valued the right of navigat- 
ing the Mississippi, as one of the last expedients of negotiation, they 
offered us an article agreeing that, after the peace, the parties 
would further negotiate " respecting the terms, conditions, and re- 
" gulations, under which the inhabitants of the United States'" 
should again enjoy the fishing liberties, '-'in consideration of a fair 
*' equivalent, to be agreed upon between his majesty and the said 
*' United States, and granted by the said United States for such li- 
" berty aforesaid ;" and a reciprocal stipulation with regard to the 
British right of navigating the Mississippi. As the parties after the 
peace would have been just as competent fuMher to negotiate on 
these points, if so disposed, without this article as with it, its only 
effect would have been a mutual surrender, on the American side, 
of the fishing liberties, and on the British side, of the right to navi- 
gate the Mississippi ; with this difference, thnt we should havesnr- 



106 

rendered, in (Jirect violation of our instructions, a real, existing, 
practical liberty, which, even in the war of our independence, had 
been deemed of the highest importance, and at its close had been, 
with infinite difficulty, secured ; a liberty, of which that portion of 
the Union, whom it immediately concerns, had been, from the time 
of the treaty of 1783, in the constant, real, and useful possession ; 
while the British would have surrendered absolutely nothing — a 
right which, by inference from their own principle, was abrogated 
by the war ; a right which, under the treaty of 1783, they had en- 
joyed for thirty years, without ever lising it, and which, in all human 
probability, never would have been of more beneticial use to the 
British nation, than would be to the peoj)le of the United States the 
right of navigating the Bridgewater canal. Or the Danube. 

There was certainly an inconsistency on the part of the British 
government, in claiming a right to navigate the Mississippi, while 
asserting that the treaty of 17B8 was abrogated by the war : and 
when pressed by us to say on what principle they claimed it without 
offering for it an equivalent, they said the equivalent was, their ac- 
ceptance of the 49th parallel of latitude for the northwestern boun- 
dary, instead of the line, to which they were entitled by the treaty 
of 1783; to the Mississippi. As they gave up the line to the river, 
they said they had a right to reserve its navigation, and access to 
it for that purpose. They had said the same thing to Messrs. Mon- 
roe and Pinkney in 1807 ; and the principle had been assented 
to by them, with the subsequent sanction of President Jefferson. 
Still the whole argument leaned upon the continuing validity of the- 
treaty of 1783 ; for the boundary line, as well as the Mississippi na- 
vigation, was null and void, if that treaty was abrogated. We re- 
plied to them, that, although we were willing to agree to the 49th 
parallel of latitude for the boundary, and thought it of mutual in- 
terest that the line should be fixed, we were yet not tenacious of 
it ; we could not agree to their article of mutual surrender, with a 
pledge of future negotiation ; but we would consent to omit the 
boundary article itself, and leave the whole subject for future ad- 
justment. And to this they finally agreed. 

The advantage of this to us was, that we came out of the war, 
without having surrendered the fishing liberties, as they had been 
enjoyed before, and stipulated at the treaty of 1783. We were 
still free to maintain, and we did, after the conclusion of the peace, 
eflectively maintain, the existence of the right, notwithstanding the 
intervening war. The British government still insisted that the 
treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the war ; but when called upon to 
show, why then they treated the United States as an independent 
nation, and why in the treaty of Ghent they had agreed to four 
several commissions to ascertain the boundaries, "according to the 
true intent and meaning of that same treaty of J 783," they finally 
answered, that they considered our Independence, and the boun- 
daries, as existing facts, like those of other nations, without refer- 
ence to their origin. This left nothing but a dispute about words ; 



107 

lor we applied ttie same principle to the fishing liberties of the 
(bird article, which they conceded with regard to the acknowledge- 
ment of Indeperidence and to the boundyries. They considered 
the whole treaty of 1783 as a British grant. We considered it as 
a British acknowledgement. They never drew the nice distinction, 
attempted by Mr. Russell, between a f.erishable and imperishable 
part of the treaty, or admitted that it consisted of rights which they 
could not, and of privileges which they could resume without our 
consent. By their principle, they might have resumed the whole ; 
and when they notified to us at Ghent, that they did not intend to 
fS^ront. us again the fishing liberties within their exclusive jurisdic- 
tion, but that they meant to leave us the right of fishing in the 
open sea, ^hey gave us distinctly enough to understand that they 
were treating us with magnaninuty, in not resuming the whole. 
There was in truth no difference in the principle. And Mr. Rus- 
sell, in consulting his Vattel, to find that fishing rights were jura 
vicroefaciiltcUis, and therefore imprescriptible, ought to have seen 
what that writer very explicitly says, not that they were rights 
which could not be acquired by long usage, but rights which could 
not be lost by non user. He ought also to have seen, what Vattel 
no less clearly lays down, that although a nation may appropriate 
to itself a fishery upon its own coasts and within its own jurisdic- 
tion, yet, "if it has once acknowledged the common right of other 
" nations to come and fish there, it can no longer exclude them 
*' from it ; it has left that fishery in its primitive freedom, at 
" least with respect to those who have been in possession of it." 
And he cites the herring fishery on the coast of England, as being 
common to them with other nations, because they had not appro- 
priated it to themselves, yro?rt the beginning. 

In perusing the letter of Mr. Russell, whether original or du- 
plicate, I cannot but reflect with gratitude to Providence upon the 
slender thread by which the rights of this n;ition to the fisheries 
were in fact suspended at the negotiation of Ghent. Positive and 
precise as our instructions were, not to surrender them, if Mr. 
missell had disclosed at Ghent the opinions avowed in either ver- 
sion of his letter, if he had so broadly asserted and so pertinacious* 
ly maintained his conviction of the utter worthles^riess of the fish- 
eries, in comparison with the exclusion of the British from a mere 
phantom of right to navigate the Mississippi, which they bad al- 
ways enjoyed without use ; without benefit to themselves or injury 
to us ; if he had so learnedly disserted to prove that the treaty of 
1783 was tosally and absolutely abrogated by the war ; if he had 
so thoroughly inverted the real state of the question, and paiiited 
it in such glowing colours as a sacrifice of deep, real interests of 
the West to a shallow, im;tginary interest of the East ; if, with 
that perseverance which is the test of sincerity, tie had refused to 
sign the proposal determined upon by the mtijority of his colleagues, 
and give ..i them notice that he should transmit to his government 
Ihr vindication ef himself and his motives for differing from them ; 



108 

and, above ail, it another mind could have been found in the miti- 
sion, capable of concurring with him in those views, it would at 
least have required of the majority an inflexibility of fortitude, 
beyond that of any trial by which they were visited, to have per- 
severed in their proposal. Had they concurred with him in his 
opinion of the total abrogation of the treaty of 1783, by the mere 
fact of the war, the tisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the 
coast of Labrador, and to an indefinite extent from the Island of 
Newfoundland, were lost to the United States forever, or at least 
till the indignant energy of the nation should have recovered, by 
conquest, the rights thus surrendered to usurpation. In notifying 
to us that the British government intended not to renew the grant 
of the fisheries within British jurisdiction, they had not said what 
extent they meant to give to these terms. They had said they did 
not mean to extend it to the right of the fisheries, generally, ort» 
the open seas, enjoyed by all other nations. (.See Letter of the Ame- 
rican Commissioners to the Secretary of State of Vlih August, 1814. 
Waifs State Papers, vol. 9, p. 321.) But there was not wanting his- 
torical exposition of what Great Britain undeistood by her exclu- 
sive jurisdiction as applied to these fisheries. In the 12th article 
of the treaty of Utrecht, by which Nova Scotia or Acadia had been 
ceded by France to Great Britain, the cession had been made " in 
'• such ample manner and form, that the subjects of the most 
"Christian King shall hereafter be excluded from all kind of fish- 
" ing in the said seas, bays, and other places on the coasts of Nova 
" Scotia ; that is to say, on those which lie towards the east, within 
"■ THIRTY LEAGUES, beginning from the island commonly called 
'' Sable, inclusively, and thence along towards the southwest." 

By the thirteenth article of the same treaty, French subjects 
were excluded from fishing on any other part of the coast of the 
Island of Newfoundland, then from Cape Bonavista northward, and 
then westward to Point Riche. By the fifteenth article of the treaty 
of Utrecht, between Great Britain and Spain, certain rights of fish- 
ing at the Island of Newfoundland, had been reserved to the Gui- 
puscoans, and other subjects of Spain ; but in the eighteenth article 
of the treaty of peace between Great Britain and Spain, of 1763, 
his Catholic majesty had desisted, "as well for himself as for his 
successors, from all pretension which he might have formed in fa- 
vour of the Guipuscoans and other his subjects, to the right of 
fishing IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD of the Island of Newfoundland." 
In these several cases, it is apparent that Great Britain had assert- 
ed and maintained an exclusive and proprietary jurisdiction over 
the 'vvhole fishing grounds of the Grand Bank, as well as on the 
coast of North America, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Nor 
are we without subsequent indications of what she would have 
considered as her exclusive jurisdiction, if a majority of the Ame- 
rican commission at Ghent had been as ready as Mr. Russell de- 
clares himself to have been, to subscribe to her doctrine, that all 
our fishing liberties had lost, by the war, every vestige of right. 



109 

For, in the summer of 1815, the year after the conclusion of the 
peace, her armed vessels on the American coast warned all Ame- 
rican fishing vessels not to approach within sixty miles of the 
shores. 

It was this incident which led to the negotiations which termi- 
nated in the convention of 20th October, 1818. In that instru- 
ment the United States have renounced forever, that part of the 
fishing liberties which they had enjoyed or claimed in certain parts 
of the exclusive jurisdiction of the British provinces, and within 
three marine miles of the shores. This privilege, without being of 
much use to our fishermen, had been found very inconvenient to the 
British : and, in return, we have acquired an enlarged liberty, both 
of fishing and drying fish, within the other parts of the British ju- 
risdiction, /orez)cr. The first article of this convention aflfords a 
signal testimonial of the correctness of the principle assumed by 
the American plenipotentiaries at Ghent ; for, by accepting the 
express renunciation of the United States, of a small portion of the 
privilege in question, and by confirming and enlarging all the re- 
mainder of the privilege ybrei'c?-, the British government have im- 
plicitly acknowledged that the liberties of the third article of the 
treaty of 1783 had not been abrogated by the war, and have given 
the final stroke to the opposite doctrine of Mr Russell. That words 
of perpetuity in a treaty cannot give that character to the en- 
gagements it contains, is not indeed a new discovery in diplomatic 
history ; but that truism has as little concern with this question, 
as the annulment of our treaty of 1778 with France, so aptly ap- 
plied to it in his letter. It is not, therefore, the word forever, in 
this convention, which will secure to our fishermen, for all time, 
the liberties stipulated and recognised in it ; but it was introduced 
by our negotiators, and admitted by those of Great Britain as a 
warning that we shall never consider the liberties secured to us by 
it, as abrogated by mere war. They may, if they please, in case 
of a war, consider the convention as abrogated, but the privileges 
as existing, without reference to their origin. But they and we, I 
trust, are forever admonished against the stratagem of demanding a 
surrender, in the form of notifying a forfeiture. They and we are 
aware, forever, that nothing but our own remmciation can deprive 
OS of the right. 

The second article of this same convention affords a demonstra- 
tion equally decisive, how utterly insignificant and worthless, in the 
estimation of the British government, was this direfully dreaded 
navigation of the Mississippi. The article gives us the 49th pa- 
rallel of latitude for the boundary, and neither the navigation of the 
river, nor access to it, was even asked in return. 

These are conclusive facts — facts appealing not to the prejudices 
or the jealousies, but to the sound sense and sober judgment of 
men. Without yielding at all to Mr. Russell, in my " trust in God 
and the valour of the West," I have an equal trust in the same di- 
vine being, sis connected with i\ie jusiicn of the West, I have the 

44 



no 

perfect and undoubtingreliance, that totheclear-sighted intelligence 
of the western count}', the gorgons, and hydras, and chimeras dire, 
of Vir. Russell's imagination, raised by incantation from the waters 
of the Mississippi, will sink as they rose, and be seen no more. 
Without professing to sacrifice any of those ties of duty and alle- 
giance, which bind me to the interests of my native State, I cannot 
allow Mr. Russell's claim to a special ardour for the welfare of the 
West, to be superior to my own, or to that of the deceased, or of 
the living colleague, with whom I concurred, without mental re- 
servation, in the measure subscribed to, and denounced by, Mr. 
Russell, We were all the ministers of the whole Union ; and 
sure I am, that every member of the majority would have spurned 
with equal disdain the idea of sacrificing the interest of any one 
part of the Union to that of any other, and the uncandid purpose 
of awakening suspicions at the source of their common authori- 
ty here, against the patriotism and integrity of any one of his col- 
leagues. 

I shall conclude with a passing notice of the three alternatives, 
which in the postscript to the original of his letter of 11th Februa- 
ry, 1815, he says, we might have taken, instead of that which, as 
he alleges, we, against his will, did do. We had, says he, three 
other ways of proceeding : 

*' First. To contend for the indestructibility of the treaty of 1783, 
■** thence inferring the continuance of the fishing privilege, without 
" saying any thing about the navigation of the Mississippi, which 
'• would have reserved our right of contesting this navigation, on 
" the grounds I have mentioned, specially applicable to it. Se- 
" condly, To have considered the treaty at an end, and offered a 
" reasonable equivalent, wherever it might he found, for the fishing 
" privilege." Thirdly, To have made this liberty a sine qua non 
" of peace, as embraced by the principle of status ante bellum. 

*' To either of these propositions" (he adds,) "• I would have aS- 
*' sented. But I could not consent to grant or revive the British 
•'^ right to the navigation of the Mississippi." 

He could not consent ! He did consent : see his name subscribed 
to the letter from the American to the British plenipotentiaries of 
12th December, 1814 — p. 44 of the message of 25th February 
last. 

It is, indeed, painful to remark here, and throughout this letter 
of Mr Russell, how little solicitude there is discoverable, to pre- 
serve even the appearance of any coincidence between his real 
sentiments and his professions : half his letter is an argument in 
form to prove, that the treaty o*' 1783 was abrogated by the war ; 
yet, he says, he would have assented to contend for its indestruC' 
iibilitij, so long as it applied only to the defence of the fisheries, 
reserving his special grounds of objection to its being applied to 
the navigation of the Mississippi. 1 have shown, that the inde- 
structibility of the treaty of 17G3 never was asserted by any of the 
American commissioners ; but, that the principle that it had not 



Ill 

been abrogated by the War, and that none of the rights stipulated 
and recognised in it, as belonging to the people of the United 
States, could be abrogated, but by their (5wn renunciation, was at 
first assumed in defence of the lisheries only, and without saying 
any thing of the Mississippi. When, therefore, the demand for 
the navigation of the Mississippi came from the British plenipo- 
tentiaries, Mr. Russell's special objections to the aj)plication of our 
principle, in favour of our demand, might have been urged. But 
what were these special objections .'' 1 have shown, that they were 
our own wrong — fraud and extortion upon Spam, to justify perfidy 
to Great Britain. Mr. Russell never did allege these objections 
at Ghent, and, if he had, a majority of the American mission would, 
assuredly, have been ashamed to allege them to the British govern- 
ment. 

The second way of proceeding, to which Mr. Russell says he 
would have assented M'as to consider the treaty of 1783 at an end, 
and offer for the fishing privilege, a reasonable equivalent, wherever 
it might he found — and where would he have found it ? He will 
not affirm that we had authority to offer any equivalent whatever — 
we had been specially instructed not to surrender them. He says 
he would have surrendered, and purchased them at a reasonable 
price again. 

The third substitute, to which he says he would have assented, 
is the strangest of all. He says he would have made it a sine qua 
non of peace, as embraced by the principle of status ante bellum. 

A sine qua non for the status ante bellum ! And yet he could not 
eonsent to grant or revive the British right to the navigation of the 
of the Mississippi in order to procure or preserve the fishing lib- 
erty ; when the status ante bellum would have given them not only 
the whole treaty of 1783, but the permanent articles of the treaty 
of 1794 ; not only the navigation of the Mississippi, but unre- 
strained access to our territories and intercourse with our Indians. 
I have shown that the most aggravated portion of Mr. Russell's 
charge against his colleagues of the majority, that of wilful viola- 
tion of positive and unequivocal instructions, by a senseless offer 
to the British plenipotentiaries, sacrificing an important Western 
to a trifling Eastern interest, is not only utterly destitute of founda- 
tion, but that it was not even made, nay, more, that it was distinctly 
contradicted by the letter really written by Mr. Russell at Paris, 
on the lllh of February, 1815. Into Mr. Russell's motives for in- 
troducing it into the duplicate of that letter, delivered by himself 
at the Department of State, to be communicated to the House as 
the letter called for by (heir resolution, I shall not attempt to 
penetrate ; having, as I trust, equally shown that the charges im- 
plied in the real letter are as groundless as their aggravation? in 
the duplicate. The professions of unfeigned respect for the integ- 
rity, talents, and judgment, of those colleagues whos« conduct is, 
in the same letter, represented as so weak, absurd, and treacherous, 
I can, for my own part, neither accept nor reciprocate. To hare 



112 

been compelled to speak as in these remarks I have done, of a per- 
son distinguished b^ the favour of his country, and with whom I 
had been associated in a service of high interest to this Union, has 
been among the most painful incidents of my life. In the defence 
of myself and my colleagues, against imputations so groundless in 
themselves, at first so secretly set forth and now so wantonly pro- 
mulgated before the legislative assembly of the nation, it has been 
impossible entirely to separate the language of self-vindication from 
that of reproach. With Mr. Russell I can also rejoice that the 
proposal offered on the 1st of December, 1814, was rejected by 
the British government, not because I believe it now, more than I 
did then, liable to any of the dangers and mischiefs so glaring in 
the vaticinations of Mr. Russell, but because both the interests to 
which it relates have since been adjusted in a manner still more 
satisfactory to the United States. 1 rejoice, too, that this .adjust- 
ment has taken place before the publication of Mr. Russell's letter 
could have any possible influence in defeating or retarding it. The 
convention of 20th October, 1818, is the refutation of all the doc- 
trines of Mr. Russell's letter, to which there can be no reply. It 
has adjusted the fishing interest upon the principle asserted by the 
American mission at Ghent, but disclaimed by Mr. Russell. It has 
given us the boundary of latitude 49, from the Lake of the Woods 
westward, and it has proved the total indifference of the British 
government to the right of navigating th? Mississippi, by their 
abandonment of their last claim to it, without asking an equivalent 
for its renunciation. 

With regard to the magnitude of the fishing interest which was at 
stake during the negotiation at Ghent, I believe the views disclosed 
in Mr. Russell's letter as incorrect as the principles upon which he 
would have surrendered if. The notification of exclusion was from 
all fisheries within exclusive British jurisdiction. I have shown 
that, historically. Great Britain had asserted and maintained exclu- 
sive proprietary jurisdiction over the whole. Had we tamely ac- 
quiesced in her principle of forfeiture, without renunciation, we 
should soon have found that her principle of exclusion embraced 
the whole. That a citizen of Massachusetts, acquainted with its 
colonial history, with the share that his countrymen had had in the 
conquest of a great part of these fisheries, with the deep and 
anxious interest in them taken by France, by Spain, by Great Bri- 
tain, for centuries before the American revolution ; acquainted 
with the negotiations of which they had been the knot, and the wars 
of which they had been the prize, between the three most powerful 
maritime nations of modern Europe ; acquainted with the profound 
sensibility of the whole American Union, during the revolutionary 
war, to this interest, and with the inflexible energies by which it 
had been secured at its close ; acquainted with the indissoluble 
Jinks of attachment between it and the navigation, the navy, the ma- 
ritime defence, the national spirit and hardy enterprise of this great 
republic ; that such a citizen, stimulated to the discharge of duty by 



113 

a fresh instruction from his government, given at the most trying 
period of the war upon the very tii'st rumour of an intention, on 
the part of Great Britain, to demand its surrender, not to surrender 
it, sooner to break off the negotiation than surrender it ; that such 
a citizen, with the dying words of Lawrence, " Don't give up the 
*'ship," still vibrating on his ear, should describe this interest "as 
" totally unnecessary for us for subsistence or occupation," and 
affording, " in no honest way, either commercial facility or political 
*' advantage," as "the doubtful accommodation oi a few fishermen 
** annually decreasing in number," is as strange and unaccountable 
to me as that he should deliberately sit down, two months after the 
treaty was concluded, and write to his government a cold-blooded 
dissertation to prove that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, in 
the principle upon which he and his colleagues had rested its future 
delience, and that he considered the fishing liberty " to be entirely 
" at an end, without a new stipulation for its revival." 

Such were not the sentiments of a majority of the American com- 
missioners at Ghent ; such were, particularly, not the sentiments 
of the writer of these remarks. He reflects, with extreme satis- 
faction, upon that deep and earnest regard for this interest mani- 
fested at that time, by the executive government of the United 
States.in the positive and unqualified instruction of 25th June, 1814, 
to the commissioners, on no consideration whatever to surrender 
the fisheries. He rejoices that this instruction was implicitly obey- 
ed ; that the nation issued from the war with all its rights and liber- 
ties unimpaired, preserved as well from the artifices of diplomacy, 
as from the force of preponderating power upon their element, the 
seas ; and he trusts that the history of this transaction, in all its de- 
tails, from the instruction not to surrender the fisheries, to the con- 
clusion of the convention of 20th October, 1818, will give solemn 
warning to the statesmen of this Union, in their conflicts with i'o- 
reign powers, through all future time, never to consider any of the 
liberties of this nation as abrogated by a war, or capable of being 
extinguished by any other agency than our own express renun- 
ciation. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

Mav^, 1822. 



114 



THE TRIPLICATE. 

In the National Gazette, of lOlh May, 1822, printed at Philadel- 
phia, there was published, headed " For the National Gazette," a 
" Letter of Jonathan Russell, Esq. to the Hon. the Secretary of 
State, in relation to the negotiations at Ghent." It was dated Paris, 
11th February, 1815, not marked '' private," nnd in the same pa- 
per was accompanied by the following article, under the editorial 
head : 

NEGOTIATIONS AT GHENT. 

The call made in Congress for a particular letter of Jonathan 
Piussell, Esq. on the subject of the negotiations at Ghent, the sup- 
posed object of that call, and the extraordinary tenour of the Pre- 
sident's reply to it, have excited a general curiosity respecting the 
contents of the document, about which an air of mystery and preg- 
nant importance was thus thrown. The President stated in his 
message, as our readers will recollect, that he had found the letter 
among his private papers, marked "private," by the writer, whose 
view of his own conduct and that of his colleagues was such as 
would demand from the'two surviving members of the Ghent mis- 
sion, a reply containing their view of the transactions in question ; 
which reply, upon the principles of equal justice, ought to be com- 
municated at the same time to Congress. The President stated, 
also, that he had deposited the original of the letter in the Depart- 
ment of State, with instructions to deliver a copy to any person who 
might be interested. 0O"[A copy has come into our hands, for the 
exactness of which we can vouch, and which we publish entire, 
this afternoon ;] and as the House of Representatives has repeated 
the call for the document, in terms that have empowered the Pre- 
sident to submit with it whatever he pleased of a relevant purport, 
we may expect to be soon able to lay before our readers, the com- 
munication, in the nature of an answer, which the Secretary of 
State had expressed a desire to be permitted to offer. 

Most persons will, we apprehend, fmd that the ideas respecting 
the character of the letter, which they had been led from what has 
passed, to form, are in a degree erroneous. Mr. Russell has not 
arraigned the conduct or questioned the motives of his colleagues, 
who composed the majority on the point discussed — on the contra- 
ry, he has, we observe, emphatically borne testimony, towards the 
end of the letter, to their integiity, talents, and judgment ; and his 
purpose seems to have been, not to prove that they erred, so much 
as to furnish a satisfactory apology for his having cjiffered with them 
in opinion. If he marked the letter " private," it is not thence to 
be inferred that he meant it to remain secret for them, or absolute- 
ly ; but merely that it should not be considered as a part of the 
public and oflicial record of the negotiations, or otherwise than his 



115 

separate and personal explanation of his dissent in a particular and 
importiint transaction of the case. We would remark that such ex- 
planations are by no means rare in the annals of diplomacy. — 
{)t/- [We learn, from good authority, that the first call in the House 
of Representatives, for the correspondence which led to the Treaty 
of Ghent, was not made at the instigation of Jflr. Ivussell, nor in 
consequence of communications ^vith him ; and Jhat in like mariner, 
he had no share in the call for the private letter.] The attention 
of Mr. Floyd was attracted to it, we presume, by the following 
passage of a short extract of a letter from Mr. Russell to the Secre- 
tary of State, contained in the correspondence which the Presi- 
dent submitted to Congress on tiie 25th of February. 

"As you will perceive bj' our despatch to you, of this date, that a majority 
only of the mission was in favour of oft'ering to the British plenipotentiaiias, an 
article confirming, the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and ours 
to the liberty as to the fishoriss, it becomes me in candour to acknowledge, that 
I was in the minority on that question. 1 must reserve to myself the power of 
communicating to you, hereafter, the reasons which iniiuenced mo to diffei from 
a. niajoiily of my colleagues on that occasion ; and if they be insufficient to sup- 
port my opinion, I persuade myself they will at least vindicate my motives." 

That his letter may be the better understood, we shall proceed 
to quote that part of the official despatch to which he refers, which 
relates to the article mentioned. The despatch is dated Ghent, 
25th December, 1814 ; and is among the papers comniunicated to 
Congress. 

"At the first conference on the 8th of August, the British plenipotentiaries 
had iiotifird to us, that the British government did not intend, henceforth, to al- 
low to the people of the United Slates, without an ciiuivalent, the liberties to 
tish, and to dry and cure fish, within the exclusive British jurisdiction, stipulat- 
ed, in their favour, by the latter part of the third article of the treaty of peace 
of 1733. And, in their note of the I9th August, the Biitish pienipoteniiaries 
had demanded a new stipidation to secure to British subjects the right of navi- 
gating the Mississippi ; a demand, which, unless warranted by another article 
of that same treaty of 1783, we could not perceive that Great Britain had any 
colourable pretence for making. Our instructions had forbidden us to sutler our 
right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion, and had not authorized us t.o 
make any distinction in the several provisions of the third article of the treaty 
of 1783, or between that article and any other of the same treaty. We had no 
equivalent to offer for a new recognition of our right to any part of the fisheries, 
and we had no power to grant any equivalent which might be asked for it by 
the Biitish government. We contended that the whole treaty of 1783, must be 
considered as one entire and permanent compact, not liable, like ordinary trea- 
ties, to be abrogated by a subsequent war between the parties to it ; as an in- 
strument, recognising the rights and liberties enjoyed by the people of the United 
States, as an independent nation, and containing the terms and conditions on 
which the two parts of one empire had mutually agreed, thenceforth to consti- 
tute two, distinct and separate nations. In consenting by that treaty, that a 
part of the North American continent should remain subject to the British juris- 
diction, the people of the United States had reserved to themselves the liberty, 
which they had ever before enjoyed, of fishing upon that part of the coasts, and 
of drying and curing fish upon the shores ; and this reservation liad been as;reed 
to by the other coiitracting party. We saw not why this liberty, then no new 
grant, but a mere recognition of a prior right, always enjoyed, should be forfeited 
liy a war, any more than any othnr of the rJshts of our national independence, 



Jt6 

or why we should need a new stipulation for its enjoyment, more than wc nced-» 
6d a new article to declare that the king of Great Britain treated with us as 
free, sovereign, and independent States. We stated this principle, in genera! 
terms, to the British plenipotentiaries, in the note which we sent to them, with 
our projet of the treaty ; and we alleged it as the ground upon which no ne«r 
stipulation was deemed by our government necessary to secure to the people of 
the United States, all the rights and liberties stipulated in their favour by the 
treaty of 1783. No r^ply to that part of our note was given by the British 
plenipotentiaries ; but^ in returning our projet of a treaty, they added a clause 
to one of the articles, stipulating a right for British subjects to navigate the 
Mississippi. Without adverting to the ground of prior and immemorial usage^ 
if the principle were just, that the treaty of 1783, from its peculiar character, 
remained in force in all its parts, notwithstanding the war, no new stipulation 
was necessary to secure to the subjects of Great Britain, the right of navigating 
the Mississippi, as far as that right was secured by the treaty of 1783 ; as, oa 
the other hand, no stipulation was necessary to secure to the people of the Unit- 
ed States the liberty to fish, and to dry and cure fish witliin tlie exclusive juris- 
diction of Great Britain. 

" If they asked the navigation of the Mississippi, as a new claim, they could 
not expect we should grant it without an equivalent ; if they asked it because 
it had been granted in 1783, they must recognise the claim of the people of the 
tJnited States, to the liberty to fish, and to dry and cure fish, in question. To 
place both points beyond all further controversy, a niajoiily of us determined 
to offer to admit an article confirming both rights ; or, we offered at the same 
time, to be silent in the treaty upon both, and to leave out altogether the article 
defining the boundary from the Lake of the Woods westward. They finally 
agreed to this last proposal, but not until they had proposed an article stipulat-' 
mg for a future negotiation for an equivalent to be given by Great Britain, for 
the navigation of the Missisippi, and by the United States, for the liberty as to 
the fisheries within British jurisdiction. This article was unnecessary, with re- 
spect to its professed object, since both governments had it in their power, with- 
out it, to negotiate upon these subjects if they pleased. We rejected it, al- 
though its adoption would have secured the boundary of the 'Igth degree of lati- 
tude, west of the Lake of the Woods, because it would have been a formal aban- 
donment, on our part, of our claim, to the liberty as to the fisheries, recognised 
by the treaty of 1783." 

For the more complete comprehension of the foregoing extract, 
and Mr. Russell's letter, we copy the article, and two extracts from 
the instructions of the American commissioners. 

■Article offered by the. American to the British Plenipotentiaries at Ghent, on th<'. 
ist of December, 1814. 

*' The inhabitants of the United States sliall continue to enjoy the liberty to 
take, dry, and cure fish in places within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Bri- 
tain, as secured by the former treaty of peace; and the navigation of the river 
Mississippi, within the exclusive jmisdiction of the United States, shall remain 
free and open to the subjects of Great Britain, in the manner secured by that 
treaty ; and it is further agreed that the subjects oj' his Britannic majesty shaU 
at all times hare access, from such place as may be selected for that purpose, in 
his Britannic majesty''s aforesaid territories, vestivard and within three hundred 
miles of the Lake of the Woods, in the aforeiuid territories of the United States^ 
to the river Mississippi, in order to enjoy thebencjit of tlie navigation of that 
river, with their goods, effects, and merchandise, ivhose importation info the said 
Stales, sliall not be entirely prohibited, on the payment of the same duties as 
would be payable on the importation of the same into the Atlantic ports of tkt 
<!ard Stales, and on conforming with the Visual custom-houseregulalions.''^ 



117 

85= [Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, to the Ameikan 
Commissioners. 

Department of State, April 15, 1813. 
"The article in the treaty of 1794, which allows British traders from Ca- 
nada and the North West Company, to carry on trade with the Indian tribes, 
within the limits of the United States, must not be renewed. The pernicious 
effects of this privilege have been most sensibly felt in the present war, by the 
irifluence which it gave to the traders over the Indians, ivhose whole force hsiS 
been wielded by means thereof against the inhabitants of our Western States 
and territories. You will avoid also any stipulation which might restrain the 
United States from increasing their naval force to any extent they may think 
proper, on the lakes held tn common ; or excluding the British traders from the 
navigation of the lakes and rivers, exclusively within our own jurisdiction,'*'} 

Extract of a letter from the same to the same, 25th June, 1814, 
" Information has been received from a quarter deserving attention, that the 
late events in France have produced such an effect on the British government, 
as to make it probable that a demand will be made at Gottenburg, to surrender 
our right to the fisheries —to abandon all trade beyond the Cape of Good Hope, 
and to cede Louisiana to Spain. We cannot conceive that such a demand will 
be made. Should it be, you will, of course, treat it as it deserves. These 
rights must not be brought into discussion. If insisted on, your negotiations 
^'ill cease.'''' 

" We must confess that we consider the general views of Mr. 
Russell, which are only exhibited, as for the most part sound, and 
believe with him both that the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the 
war. and that much mischief might have resulted from allowing 
the British access to the Mississippi from the interior, which was 
offered and rejected. But we must wait to see in what lights the 
subject has been placed in the communication of Mr. Adams. It 
has been supposed, and indeed asserted with some exultation, that 
the disclosure of this affair would affect the good repute of that 
gentleman with the country, as a staunch and enlightened patriot. 
It may be confidently believed, however, that those who have 
predicted or desired this result, will be disappointed. If he com- 
mitted even an error of judgment, it was in common with Mr. Gal- 
latin and Mr. Bayard, men whose diffusive and deep love of 
country, and whose pervading sagacity and powers of just reflec- 
tion are so far acknowledged oh one side or the other by the poli- 
tical parties of the Union, that they may be declared to be fully 
admitted. And when the case shall be studied in all its circum- 
stances and details of reasoning, it will probably be universally ac- 
knowledged, by candid minds, to be one as to which the course 
pursued by the majority of the commissioners should not be deemed 
inconsistent with the best dispositions that could distinguish Ame- 
rican negotiators. We hold the rejection by the British commis- 
sioners of the article offered to them, to be a fortunate incident, 
but at the same time, we think it entitled to no small weight in the 
question of the judgment which ought, at this distance of time, to 
be pronounced on the proposal." 

In this article, the voucher for the exactness of the copy — the 
asseTtiod from goocf anfliority, that Mr. Russell had had no share 

IT) 



118 

in either of the calls of the House of Representatives of 17 Jan, 
1822, for the Ghent documents, or of 19 April, 1822, for his own 
letter, and above all, the extract from the instructions of 15 April, 
181 'i, which had never before been published, but of which Mr. 
Russell had recently obtained, from the records of the Depart- 
ment of State, two copies, were undoubted indications that the 
publication came from Mr. Russell. The editor of the Gazette 
has indeed since stated, that the editorial article was written by 
himself; but it was evidently written upon representations directly 
or indirectly from iVIr. Russell. The opinions expressed in the 
editorial article were his own, but the facts for which he vouched, 
and the extract from the cancelled instructions, could have beea 
furnished him only by, or at the instance of, Mr. Russell. 

The copy of the letter was not exact, as will be seen by the fol- 
lowing extracts from a subsequent editorial article in the National 
Gazette of 25 May, 1822. 

" We insert, to-day, the reply of the hon. John Q,. Adams, Se- 
cretary of State, to Mr. Russell's communications to the govern- 
ment respecting the negotiations at Ghent." 

" Upon the merits of the main argument, we do not intend, and 
indeed have not room, to express an opinion to-day ; but we may 
remark at once, that so far as regards the proposal to allow the 
British the fre« navigation of the Mississippi, Mr. Adams has plac- 
ed his conduct and views beyond the reach of calumny and misap- 
prehension for the future. It will be seen that Mr. Jefferson, ia 
1807, then President of the United States, expressly authorized 
Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, who were negotiating in London, to 
accede to astipulation proposed by the British government for the 
navigation of that river, and acces;B to it from our territories, on 
gubmitting to the duties and custom-house regulations applicable 
to goods and effects of citizens of the United States. 

" The pamphlet of documents printed for Congress embraces 
not only the original letter of Mr. Russell, as received by Mr. Mon- 
roe, but the paper which Mr. Russell on the 22d April last, left at 
the Department of State, as the duplicate of that letter, and which 
contains passages not to be found in the original. In publishing the 
letter of Mr. Russell, we undertook to vouch for its exactness as a 
copy, circumstances having led us fully to believe this to be the 
case. On comparing it, however, with the printed original, we 
found the following variations in the text. 

" (Quotation from our publication : ' From the year 1783 to the 
' commencement of the present war, the actual advantages derived 

* from the tishing privilege by the people of the United States, 
' were, according to the best information that we could obtain on 

* the subject,' &c. The text of the original is — I cart obtain on the 
subject. Again, our printed text is, ' because by conceding in it 
' (the proposed article) to Great Britain the navigation of the Mis- 

* sissippi, we directly violated our instructions, and we |)flil['ed,' 
he. The phrase, we directly violated our instrtictions, is not in (he 



119 

original. In the postscript of the letter in our text, it is said, * we 
had three ways of proceeding ;' the text laid before Congress is, 
' we had three other ways of proceeding.' 

" With respect to the variations between the text of the letter 
which we pubhshed and that of the original, we would remark that 
they are likewise in the duplicate, deposited in the Department of 
State." 

The most remarkable circumstances attending this publication of 
the letter in the National Gazette, were the time selected for ihe 
purpose, and the interpolations stiJI retained, while nearly all those 
of the duplicate were dismissed. The letter in the Gazette was, 
with the exception of about two lines, the original letter entirely 
restored; but one of those lines was " we directly violated our 
instructions" and its retention was necessarily connected with the 
citation of the cancelled paragraph, published as part of the accom- 
panying editox'ial article. For those were the instructions alleged 
to have been violated ; yet this was after I had shown to Mr. Rus- 
sell, and he had read at the Department of State, the despatch from 
the Secretary of State, which had revoked those instructions. It 
was apparent also that Mr. Russell had, before he left Washington, 
prepared himself for this publication at Philadelphia, and at a time 
when, from the President's message in answer to the call from the 
House of the 19th of April, it was probable the letter would not 
be communicated to the House at all. 



Frotn the Boston Statesman of 27 June, 1822. 

MR. RUSSELL'S REPLY TO MR. ADAMS. 

Is was not until the 30th ult. that I received a copy of the com» 
munication which had been made, by the President, to the Plouse 
of Representatives, on the 7th of that month. This communication 
consists of a letter which 1 had written from Paris on the 15th of 
February, 1815, and addressed to the then Secretary of State, of 
a paper left by me at the Department of State, on the 22d of April 
last, and of the remarks of Mr. Adams on both. I say on both — 
for, notwithstanding that the report of Mr. Adams to the President, 
speaks only of his remarks on the paper deposited by me at the 
Department, as just mentioned, yet a considerable portion of those 
remarks apply to the letter received at that Department in 1815. 
The message of the President of the 4th ult. indeed, evidently 
considers the contemplated report of Mr. Adams to be confined to 
that letter only, it is apparent, from the whole tenor of that message, 
that the letter which Mr. Monroe received from Paris, was alone 
the document called for, and to be communicated to the House, i 
was surprised, therefore, on receiving the printed documents, to 
find that either more had been called for on the Gth, or, without 
being embraced by such call, had been communicated on the 7th 
of May, than had been signified by that message. 



120 

I had left Washington on the 5th, in the belief that, at so late a 
moment of the session, no call, in reference to that message, would 
be made, or, if made, that it would produce the letter only receiv- 
ed from Paris, with the corresponding report of the Secretary of 
State. My surprise was not diminished when, on reading the re- 
marks of Mr. Adams, 1 discovered that they mainly owed their ex- 
istence and character to a paper, which had been considered not to 
be the paper called for, and whici) had been obtruded on the 
House, after my departure, at the special instance of Mr. Adams 
himself, and to afford him an opportunity of giving another speci- 
men of his taste and temper to the public. 

Mr. Adams, on the 6th of May, the very next day after my de- 
parture from Washington, went to the House of Representatives, 
and there, in person, sought for a member who would consent to 
make the call which vi^as necessary for the official publication of 
his personal remarks. To one member from Massachusetts, at 
least, he had applied in vain, before he tioaliy succeeded in his ob- 
ject. It would seem that the evidence furnished b}' these facts 
ought to have been sufficient, at least, to deter him from accusing 
others of " a wanton promulgation before the legislative assembly 
of the nation." 

For the previous calls, whatever might have been the motive 
for mriking them, 1 am not responsible. With the gentleman who 
made the call on the 17th of January, for the correspondence 
which led to the treaty oi' Ghent, not already made public, I had 
not the least personal acquaintance at the time, nor had I before 
that call was actually made, the slightest intimation, directly or in- 
directly, of any intention of making it. 

In an interview with Mr, Adams, at his house, a short time af- 
terwards, he said, in reference to that call, that a letter had been 
found from me, in the aichives of State, which might be considered 
to be embraced by it. He desired to know if i was willing to have 
it communicated, I replied that 1 had no distinct recollection of 
the letter to which he alluded, and that I wished to see it before I 
gave my consent to its publication. He acquiesced, and I repaired 
accordingly to the Department of State. 1 found the letter to 
which Mr. Adams had referred, to be that which I had written at 
Ghent, on the 25th of December, 1815, and which announced the 
fact of my having been in the minority on the proposition relative 
to the navigation of the Mississippi and the fishing privilege, and 
intimated my intention of communicating the reasons which had in- 
fluenced my conduct on that occasion. I could perceive no good 
cause why I should object to the communication of such a letter, 
and I consented that the part which related to the subject just 
mentioned, should, with the approbation of Mr. Adams, be commu- 
nicated. Mr. Adams at that time expressed no dissatisfliction that 
I had written such a letter, nor made any comment on its contents. 
This is all the participation which I had, directly or indirectlv, 
with the call of the 17th of January. 



121 

The member who had made that call, made also the call of the 
19th of April. 1 his second call was obviously occasioned by the 
extract of my letter of the 25th of December, 1814 * above men- 
iioned, which the first call had brought forth. To that member I 
had never communicated, by transcript or otherwise, the contents 
of my letter written at Paris, for which he called. I had refused to 
others any account or copy of thai letter, for which they had applied 
to me, as I believed, for publication. As a reason for thus refusmg, 
I uniformly assigned the necessity, in my opinion, of the previous 
consent and approbation ot the constituted authorities for the regu- 
lar publication of a letter written by me while in the public ser- 
vice, to one of those authorities, and in relation to that service. 

All the participation which I had in this call was, to leave at the 
Department of State, in consequence of an application from that 
Departme7it, the paper which has since been published as a dupli- 
cate. The simple facts are these: on the morning of the 20th of 
April, a gentleman employed in the Department of State called on 
me at my lodgings and inquired if I could furnish a duplicate of 
the letter which had been called for. I intimated a reluctance to 
communicating any thing as a duplicate. He observed, that it need 
not be presented as such to the House, but wished to have it so 
presented to the Department. This is, in substance, what was said 
on that occasion. 

On the 22d, I called at the Department of State — Mr. Adams 
was not there — and 1 left the paper with the gentleman who had 
applied to me for it. The word " duplicate" had indeed been 
written on it, in consequence of his suggestion as above stated ; but 
I gave no further intimation, much less any assurance, that it was 
so. Ke made no inquiry, and 1 made no comment. 1 observed 
merely, that 1 left it tor the examination of Mr. Adams ; and that I 
was indifferent whether it was communicated, under the call of the 
House, or not, as the letter called for ; but if not so commimicated, 
I expressed the expectation that it would be returned to me. He 
received it accordingly. 

A few days afterwards I again visited the Department of State, 

* The following is the extract alluded to : 

Extract of a letter from Jonatliun Russell, esq to the Secretary of Stale, dated 
at Ghent, 25tlt of December, 1814, and communicated to the House of Repre- 
sentatives, by the President, on the 2\st of February, 1822. 

'^ My necessary occupation, at this moment, in aiding my colleagues to prepare 
our joint despatches, puts it out oj my poiver to urnish you with any details or 
observations exclusively my own. 

" ^s, however, you will perceive by our despatch to you of thisdate, that a majo- 
rity only of the mission was in favour of offering to the British plenipoientiarns, 
an article confirming the British right to the navigation of Ike Mississippi, and 
ours to the liberty as to the fisheries, it becomes me, in candour, to acknowledge thai 
I was in the minority on that question. I must reserve the poiver of communi- 
rating to you, hereajter, the reasons which infiuenced me to differ from a majo- 
oily of my colleagues on that occasion, and it they be insuffickiit to support my 
opinion, I persuade myself they will, at least, vindicate 7ny motives.'''' 



122 

snd was again so unfortunate as not to finJ Mr. Adams thci -^ 1 
saw, however, the gentleman with whom I had left the paper, and 
learnt from him, that as it had been dated, as he supposed, b)' mis- 
take in 1822, he had taken the liberty to correct it, by inserting 
1816. I made no objection, but repeated my expectation, that if 
it should not be deemed proper to use it for the purpose for which 
it had been delivered, it would be returned to me. 

1 made a third visit to the Department of State, on the 2d of May, 
if I remember correctly. Mr. Adams was then in his office, and 
in passing thither, I learned from the gentleman who had received 
the paper delivered by me on the 22d, that it had undergone ano- 
ther alteration in its date, and that 1816 had been made to give 
place to 1815. This last alteration was, it seems, found necessary 
to make the paper agree in date with the letter received from Pa- 
ris, which had at last been found ; and thus to be able to use that 
paper, with a better grace, as a duplicate, and to abuse it with the 
more confidence for its variation from that letter The corrective 
potfcr, assumed, appears to have been limited acccordingly. 

Mi. Adams soon spoke of the paper which I had left, on the 22d, 
and had not proceeded far without complaining of its difference 
from the original which had been found. This circumstance he 
affected to consider particularly offensive. In vain I represented 
that the difference between the two was not material ; that neither 
was personal or accusatory ; that both were merely defensive ; 
and that I was willing that either or neither should be communicat-. 
ed, as he might judge proper. I soon perceived that it was too 
late to offer explanation with a prospect of success, fie was not in 
a humour to listen to me, even with civility ; the manner in which 
he treated the business, destroyed, in me, even a wish to conciliate 
or appease him. 

I have stated these facts principally to show, that the paper was 
left at the Department of State, not on ray own proper motion, but 
that it was left there on the application, and marked duplicate at 
the suggestion of a person belonging to that Department, and pos- 
sessing the confidence of Vlr. Adams. Such an application was 
altogether unexpected by me, and was made without any previous 
intimation, suggestion, or encouragement on my part ; and had it 
not been made, that paper would never have been left at the De- 
partment of State, nor in any other manner presented to the pub- 
lic. Having twice failed in ray attempts to see Mr. Adams, 1 had 
no opportunity of offering those explanations which the case ap- 
peared to require, until it was too late to offer them. 

I considered it an act of frankness to place the paper, when thus 
applied for, whatever might be its merits or defects, in the power 
of the person who might consider himself the most liable to be af- 
fected by its publication. In this act there was certainly neither 
secrecy nor concealment to offend him. He had the sole power to 
publish it or not, as he might judge proper, and to consult his own 
feelings and interests, in forming his decision. When a private let; 



123 

<«r, written solely for the vindication of my own conduct, to tliose 
to whom 1 ^v'\^ immediate]}' responsible, was asked of me, by a per- 
son known to be under the orders of the Secretary o^State, for the 
purpose of presenting it lo the public, a tribunal for which it had 
never been intended, and to which it ought not to have been pre- 
sented without my consent. I certainly did believe, that 1 was 
permitted to make those corrections of the copy in possession, 
which appeared to me to be proper to exhibit my case most advan- 
tageously before that tribunal. I the more confidently entertained 
this opinion, as the paper was not to be there exhibited without the 
previous examination and consent of the adverse party. Such were 
the views with which it was unreservedly confided to Mr. Adams. 
But he communicated m.y private letter, as the paper called for, 
and, with it. he disingenuously communicated the paper, entrusted 
to him, not as the paper called lor, but as a convenient vehicle for 
passionate invective and intemperate personal abuse against me. 
If justice, or even decency towards me, presented no obstacle, 
s(ill, 1 should have believed, that a respect for the Representatives 
of the pc'0j)le of the United States, would have at least been suffi- 
cient lo have deterred him from so rude and irregular a course of 
proceeding. 

His first remark on what he ostentatiously presents as a duplicate 
is, that the letter written at Paris, " although of the same general 
purport and tenor, with the so-called duplicate, differs from it in 
several highly significant passages." He presents, as an example, 
a parallfl extracted from the two papers. He deduces from this 
parallel, the contradiction that I did believe, in the one paper, and 
that I did not believe, in the other paper, that we were permitted, 
by our instructions, at Ghent, to olfer a stipulation for the naviga- 
tion, by the British, of the Mississippi. So iar however, from the 
parallel passages exhibiting such a contradiction, they contain 
within themselves the evidence of their consistency with each 
olher. 

The original letter refers exclusively to the instructions of the 
25th of June, 1814, (o) OTi which the majority, in the despatch of 
the 25th of December, of the same year, solely relied, when they 
said, " our instructions had forbidden us to sull'er our right to the 
fisheries to be brought into discussion, and had not authorized us to 
make any distinction in the several provisions of the 3d article of 
the treaty of 1783." 

(tf) Extract of a letter of imtructionx, received from the Secretary by the Com- 
missioners at Ghent, dated %bth of June, 1814. 
^^ Inform a Hon has been received, from a quarter deserving attention, tloit the 
lute events in. France hare produced such an effect on the British guvzrnment, as 
toniake it probable that a demand will be made at Gothenburg^, to !>ui render our 
tight to thejisheries, to abando7i all trade beyond the (Jape oj C?od Hope, and to 
rede Louisiana lo bpaui. H e cannot believr that s^ch a deraaudwill be made ; 
nhoidd it be, you u til, of course, treat it as it deserves. These rights iniiit not be 
If infirted on, your negotiations will (lease." 



124 

The duplicate also refers to the same instructions, and perfectly 
agrees, so far as it does refer to them, with the interpretation ot 
them in the original letter. 

The original letter says. The duplicate says, 

"The majority believed them- ''The majority believed them- 
selves to be permitted to offer a selves to be permitted, their own 
very explicit proposition, with construction to the contrary not- 
regard to the navigation of its withstanding, to offer a very ex- 
principal I'iver. I believed with plicit proposition with regard to 
them that we were so permitted, the navigation of its principal ri- 
and that we were likewise per- ver ; now this offer 1 considered, 
mitted to offer a proposition re- for the reasons just suggested, 
lative to the tishing liberty," &.c. 7iotto be a violation of the instruC' 

tions, in question," &;c. 
Instead of any contradiction or inconsistency, there is here a 
perfect accordance in the sense of the two papers, in relation to 
the instruction of the 25th of June. 

I will here observe that my letter, written at Paris, in 1815, was 
as may be readily ascertained, confined to a discussion of the 
grounds which the majority assigned or suggested, in the despatch 
of the 25th of December, for the offer of the navigation of the 
Mississippi for the fishing privilege. To justify my own conduct 
to my government, in opposing that offer, 1 believed that it would 
be sufficient, at the time, to show why the reasons of the majority 
had not satisfied me. In preparing the paper which I left at the 
Department of State, I believed it to be proper, for the causes 
already suggested, to assign, for my justification, an additional reason 
which had influenced me in the course which I pursued, at the 
time. The paper therefore, says, in speaking of the offer, " b\it 
1 considered it to be against the letter and the spirit of our instruc- 
tion of the 15th of April, 1813." (6.) 

Mr. Adams, in his remarks, admits, at least by implication, that 
" the letter and the spirit" of this instruction was, indeed, against 
that offer, when he resorts for a release trom the obligation of ob- 
serving it, to other instructions, of the 19th of October, 1814, 
which, he says, were received on the 24th of the following Nov. 
authorizing the status ante beUuni, as a basis of negotiation. He 

(6) Extract of a letter of instnidions from the Secretary of State, tothe Ameri- 
can Commissioners, dated loth Jipril, l8l3. 

*' The article in the Treaty of 1794, ivhich allows British traders from Cana- 
da, and the North West Company, to carry on trade with the Indian tribes, with- 
in the limits of the United Slates, must not be renewed. Tlie pernicious effects of 
this privilege have been most sensibly felt in the present war, by the influence 
which it gave to the traders over tlie Indinns, whose whole force has been 
wielded, by means thereof, against the inhabitants of our western States and 
territories. You will avoid also any stipulation, that might restrain the United 
States from increasing their naval force, to any extent tliey may think proper, on 
the Lalces, held in common; or excluding the British traders from the naviga- 
tion of the lakes and rivers exclusively within our own jurisdiction.'' 



125 

eviJenlly means to insinuate if not to assert that, in consequence of 
the basis, thus authorized, the American mission discussed the 
proposition, rehUing to the navigation of the Mississippi and the 
fishing privilege, on the 2Clh and 29th of November, and. as a re- 
sult of that discussion, ofl'ered it on the first of December to the 
British ministers. 

This statement is incorrect. The sense of the mission was not 
distinctly taken on the 2oth and 29th of November, in relation to 
this proposition, nor did any majority, at that time, agree to offer it. 

The following is the real history of the transaction : — 

On the 24th of October, we addressed a note to the British mi- 
nisters and repeated a request already made to them, that they 
would communicate all the other specific propositions, (the preli- 
minary article proposed by the British government having alread}-^ 
been accepted by us) offering a simultaneous exchange of projects 
by both parties. The British ministers, by their note of the 31st 
of that month, declined complying with this request, saying that 
they had already by their note of the 21st of that month, communi- 
cated to us all the i)oints upon which they were instructed to insist. 
After the receipt of this note, we met together evevy day, I be- 
lieve, in order, first, to decide if we should present, on our part, a 
complete project to the British ministers without insisting on a si- 
multaneous one, on theirs, and then, after having decided to do so, 
to prepare and digest this project, until the 10th of November, 
when it was presented. During this period the proposition in 
question, after having been repeatedly and thoroughly discussed, 
was carried, as a part of the project, in the affu'mative, by a bare 
majority, Mr. Clay and myself having uniformly opposed it. 

After the majority had thus decided on making the proposition 
just mentioned an article of the contemplated project, the distiatis- 
faction of the minority at this decision, esjjepially of Mr. Clay, who 
declared that he would sign no treaty of which such an article 
should make a part, induced the majority, particularly the gentle- 
man who is now no more, to relax in their adherence to it, and to 
consent to present our project without such an article. Instead of 
such an article in the project, or, as Mr. Adams himself avows, as 
a substitute for it, t!ie paragraph, justly ascribed by him to Mr. 
Clay, was inst-rted in the note of the 10th of November. 

That this proposition had been decided on, before the lOth of 
November, is not only to be inferred from the avowal of Mr. 
Adams, just mentioned, that a suhslitute fur it had been inserted in 
our note of that day, but is expressly proved by the following ex- 
tracts of two letters which 1 addressed, at the time, to the Ameri- 
can minister at Paris. 

The first is dated at Ghent, the 4th of November, mi4, and 
says, 

" If we adhere to the understanding which we now have, we 
chall make the status ante helium a sine qva non. The question 



126 

which most perplexes us is the fisheries, and we have not yet de* 
cided on the mode of proceeding, in relation to it. They have told 
us that the liberty of taking, drying, and curing fish within the ex- 
clusive jurisdiction of Great Britain, will not be continued to us 
without an equivalent ; we cannot relinquish this liberty, and we 
cannot offer territory as an equivalent. Shall we then offer the 
free navigation of the Mississippi, which they apparently suggested 
with this view. I think this will be carried in the affirmative, al- 
though I have very serious objections to the measure." 

The other letter was dated the 20lh of November, 1814, and says 
as follows : — 

" Without having been deceived relative to the disposition of the 
majority, on the subject of the free navigation of the Mississippi, I 
am happy to inform you that this disposition laas not injiexible, and 
we finally transmitted our project without the article that had at 
.first been carried." This article was as follows : — 

" The right and liberty of the people and inhabitants of the Unit- 
ed States to take, dry, and cure fish in places within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of Great Britain as recognised (and secured) by the 
former treaty of peace ; and the privilege of the navigation of the 
Mississippi, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, 
(as secured to the subjects of Great Biitain by the same treaty) are 
hereby recognised and confirmed." 

" Besides the objection to such an article which had occurred to 
you, and which had not escaped us, the blending of the two points 
together and making them mutually dependent on each other, which 
was not done in the treaty of 1783, made this article the more ob- 
jectionable." 

From these facts it is manifest that the solution afforded by Mr. 
Adams for " the difference in my mind between the writing of the 
original and the duplicate" is not correct. A despatch, received 
on the 24th of November, could not well have had any influence oa 
my reasons for opposing a measure, previous to the 10th of that 
month. 

I have accused no one of acting against instructions, but surely 
I ought not to offend if I discovered a disposition to act, as far at 
least as might be expedient, in conformity to my own construction 
of them. 

Mr. Adams, when I last saw him at the Department of State, 
showed me on record, an instruction to the American ministers at 
Ghent, dated the fourth of October, 1814, apparently with a view 
to freshen my memory in relation to our dispensation from the obli- 
gation of observing the instructions, which 1 had alleged as a cause 
for opposing the proposition, with respect to the Mississippi. I 
had not proceeded far, however, in its perusal, before Mr. Adams 
interrupted me by saying that he believed it had not been received 
at the time, adding, after a momentary pause, that he did not know 
if it hud ever been received. The instructions of the 4th of Octo- 
ber, which had never been received, had just as much influence on 



m 

the discussions of the mission previous to the 10th of November, as 
a letter of the 19lh of October which was not received until more 
than fourteen days after those discussions had taken place. 

It may not be improper to remark here that an instruction re- 
ceived on the 24th of November, autborizinp; the status ujite helium^ 
although highly satisfactory as it regarded the past, could not well, 
considering what had already been done, have had much practical 
effect on the future negotiations. On the lOlh of that month we 
had, in substance if not in name, already proposed that basis in op- 
position to that of the uti possidetis, urged by our adversaries. la 
our note to them of that date, we offered with a sufficient precision 
the status ante betl-im, when we said that the undersigned " cannot 
agree to any other principle than that of a mutual restoration of 
territory, and have accordingly prepared an article founded on that 
basis. They are willing even to extend the same principle to the 
other objects in dispute between the two nations ; and in proposing 
all the other articles included in this project, they wish to be dis- 
tinctly undersiocd that they are ready to sign a treaty placing the 
two countries, in respect to all the subjects of di/ference between 
them in the same state ihey -cere in at the commencement of the pre- 
sent war, reserving to each party all its rights, and leaving what- 
ever may remain of controversy between them, for future and pa- 
cific negotiation." 

Besides, the proposition to which I objected before the 10th of 
November, and which was substantially thai Jirst offered on the 1st 
of December, was not, in my opinion, authorized by the status ante 
helium. I distinctly stated, in my letter, that the revival of the 
British right to navigate the Mississippi would be under existing 
circumstances,. a ne-jn and complete grant to her, &c. And in ano- 
ther place, " in thus offering the navigation of the Mississippi and 
the access to it through our territories, as an equivalent for the 
fishing liberty, we not only placed both on ground entirely different 
from that on v/hich they respectively stood in the treaty of 1783,-' 
&c. 

The meetings of the American mission on the 28th and 29th of 
November, were not in consequence of the despatch received on 
the 24th of that month. They were convened for the purpose of 
discussing "the alterations and suggestions" of the British minis- 
ters on our project which they had returned to us on the 27th, 
with an explanatory note of the 261h. Whatever might have been 
said at these meetings in relation to the Mississippi, on account of 
the alteration, respectingit, made in the 8th artic e cf our project, 
by the British plenipotentiaries, no new resolution was there taken 
by the American mission to offer the navigation of that river for the 
fishing privilege. This offer was made on the 1st of December, 
in virtue of the vote taken before the 10th of November, and 
which, although suspended, had not been reconsidered or cancelled. 
I am the more confident in this statement, as 1 distinctly remember 
that when that offer was actually ragde, it was unexpected by a nra- 



128 

jority of the misision. Mr. Bayard, in returning home from the 
house of the Brifish ministers, where the conference of the 1st of 
December had Ijccn holdcn, very explicitly declared to Mr. Clay 
and to me, his dissatisfaction that this offer had been made without 
his having been recently consulted in relation to it. I dare, in regard 
to these facts, to appeal to the recollection of Mr. Clay in confirm- 
ation of my own. 

The explanation which I have given, will, I trust, be sufficient to 
show that there could have been no impropriety in stating, at any 
time, the instructions of the 15th of April, 1013, as furnishino: an 
objection, at least durini; the first days of Nov. to a proposition 
to revive or continue to Great Britain aright to the free naviji;ation 
cf the Mississippi— a river within our exclusive jurisdiction. As 
this was the only topic, in the paper left at the Department of 
State., which was not in (he letter received from Paris, which could 
by the most sickly imagination, be strained into anattack upon others, 
I shall take but little notice of the remarks of Mr. Adams in relation 
to the remainder of that paper. 

The opinion which I there suggested, concerning the cause of 
the rejection of our proposition b)' the British ministers, was an 
opinion formed soon after that event, and I mentioned it to several 
persons, particularly to tiie Americ.m minister at Paris, at or about 
the time my letter was wriften at that place. A " trust in God and 
the valour of the West," for the disappointment of our enemies, 
was naturally suggested, at the time, by a pious and patriotic con- 
fidence in those who were able and might be willing to defend us, 
and certain!}' had nothing in it of prophecy. It was evidently more 
•wise to ]dace a trust there than instinclively in the fish of the East, 
■nhich were swimming in British waters. Nor was there any sem- 
blance of prediction of the treaty of 1818, in a belief that the fishing 
privilege might thereafter be obtained, by negotiation, "without 
any extravascnnf equivalenf, whatever," as that belief was not only 
suggested by the nafure of the case, but Muthorized by the explicit 
offer made by the British ministers, on the 10th of December, 
1814, thus to noo;otiatc and to grant that privilege in consideration 
of a fair cquivaJcnt. By the me:isure of Mr. Adams, no extrava- 
gant erjuivalcnt is precisely equal to no equivalent at all. 

As to the sentiment which 1 expressed in favour of the fishermen 
immediately interested in that privilege, it 13 a sentiment always 
and every where felt by me, and could not be expressed out of 
time or place. 

Thus much for the important differences, between the private,- 
letter received from Paris and the paper left at the Department of 
State, which have afforded such an ample field to Mr. Adams for 
thedisplav of the enviable aUributcs of his head and heart. 

I shall now make a f^'W brief observations on the principal charges 
which he exhibits against me, of inconsistency and misrepresent- 
ation. 

The principle, that the treaty of 1783 was not, on account of its 



129 

peculiar character, abrogated by the war, Mr. Adams not only re- 
asserts, but alleges to have obtained, when first suggested by him at 
Ghent, the unanimous assent of the American mission. The proof 
of this allegation appears to be inferred from the signature, by all 
that mission, of a note, to the British ministers, of the 10th of No- 
vember, in which that principle was partially adopted. It has al- 
ready been seen, even from the avowal of Mr. Adams himself, that 
the paragraph, offered by Mr. Cla3% admitting that doctrine, was a 
suhstihite to a proposition which the minority had opposed. To 
adopt, partially, in the spirit of compromise, a doctrine, as a pretext, 
to preserve the fishing privilege and to get rid of a proposition con- 
tirmative of the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, 
cannot fairly be considered as an unanimous acknowledgment by the 
American mission, of the orthodoxy of that doctrine. The consti- 
tution of the United States was, avowedly, the result of compro- 
mise, and thence some, at least of those who signed that instrument, 
must necessarily have subscribed to provisions which they did not 
desire, and to opinions which they did not approve. The infer- 
ence of Mr. Adams is, therefore, not correct. I do not recollect, 
indeed, that any member of the mission, excepting Mr. Adams him- 
self', appeared to be a very zealous believer in that doctrine. Even 
Mr. Gallatin, in his separate letter of the 25th of December, 1814, 
(c) speaks only of this doctrine as one that had been assumed. Sure 
it is that the mmority consented to admit that doctrine as an expe- 
dient only to prevent the proposition, already decided on by the 
majority, from constituting an article of our project. So far and no 
farther were the minority willing to go in adopting that doctrine, 
but whenever it was proposed to sanction the British right to navi- 
gate the Mississippi, they uniformly resisted it. 

Mr. Adams also asserts that the proposal confirming the British 
right to the navigation of the Mississippi and ours to the fishing 
privilege, was made not by a majority, but by the whole of the Ame- 
rican mission, and refers to the protocol of the conference of the 
1st of December, at which that proposal was, at length, made, and 
to our note of the 14th of that month, signed by all the American 
mission, which said that " to such an article, which they vieu-ed as 
merely declaratory, the undersigned had no objection, and have of- 
fered to accede." 

(c) Extract of a letter from Albert Gallatin, Esq. to the Secretary of Siate^ 
dated 25//i December, lol4. 
" 0?i the sutjject of the fisheries, within the jiirivdiction of Great Britain, 
•we have certainly done all that could be done. If according to the construct tov- 
of the treaty of l7<j3, which we assumed, the right was not abrogated by the 
■war, it remains entire, since ice most explicitly 7-efuscd to renounce it, either di- 
rectly or indirectly. In that case it is only an vnscltled subject of difference be 
tween the two countries. If the right must be considered as abrogated by the 
war, ice cannot regain it without an ecjuivalent. We had none to give but the 
recognition of their ric;lit to navigate the Mississippi, and we offered it. Onthis 
last supposition this right is also lost to them ; ajid, in a general jjoint of view, 
we certainly liavc lost nothing,''' 



130 

If he had referred, at the same time, to Ihe'despatchof the 25tb 
December, 1814, (J) he would there have seen that, in fact, ama- 

(d) Extract Jrom a despatch from the American Plenipotentiaries to the Secreta^ 
ry of State, dated at Ghent., 25tk of December, 18 14. 
At /^e first conlerenee, on the 8th of August, fhe British plenipotentiaries had 
liotijied us, that tlie British gorfrnment did not intend, henceforth, to alloiv to tlie 
people of the United States, without an equivalent, tfie liberties to fish, and to 
dry and cvre fish within the exclusive British jurisdiction, stipulated in their 
favour by the la'Atr part of the third article of ilie treaty of peace of 1783, And 
in the note of tl>e l9th of Aiigusi, tlie British plenipotentiaries had demanded a 
new stipulation to s'cure to British subjects tite right of navigating the Missis- 
sippi, a demand, xctiich, unless warranted by another article of tlie saine treaty 
of 1783, j/jp cotdd not perceive that Great Britain had avy colourable pretext for 
making. Our instructions had forbidden us to suffer our right to the fisheries 
to be brought into discussion, and had not authorized us to make any distinction 
in the several proxUions of the third article of the treaty of 1783, or between that 
article and any other of the same treaty. We had no equivalent to offer for a 
new recognition of our right to any part of the fisheries, and we had no power 
to grant any equivalent, ivhichmighl be asked for it by the British government. 
We cotitendcd that the whole treaty of 1783 must be considered as one entire and 
permanent compact, not liable, like ordinary treaties, to be abrogated by a sub- 
sequent war between the parties to it, as an instrument recognising the rights and 
liberties enjoyed by the people of the United States as aniridependent nation, and 
containing the terms aivd conditions on ivhich the tivo parts of one empire had 
mutually agreed, thenceforth, to constitute two distinct and separate nations. In 
consenting, by that treaty, that a part of the North American continent should 
remain subject-to the British jurisdiction, the people of the United States had 
reserved to themselves //le liberty, which they had ever before enjoyed, of fishing 
on that pari of the coast, and of drying and curing fish upon the shores — and 
this reservation had been agreed to by the other contracting parly. We saw not 
tphy this liberty, then no new grant, but a mere recognition of a prior right, 
should be JorJ'ei/cd by war, any more than any other of the rights of our national 
independence — or tvhy we should need a new stipulation for its enjoyment more 
than wc needed a new article to drclcre that the king of Great Britain treated 
with us as free, sovereign, and independent States. fFe slated this principle, in 
genera! terms, to the British plcmpulcntiari^s, in the note which we sent to them, 
with our project of the treaty — and ice alleged it as the ground upon which no 
new stipulation was deemed by our government necessary to secure to the people 
of the Un ited Stales all the rights and liberties, stipidalcd in their favour by the 
treaty of 1783. JVo reply to that part of our note was given by the British 
plenipotentiaries ; but, in returning our project of a treaty, they added a clause 
tB one of the articles stipulating for a right for British subjects to navigate the 
Mississippi,* uithout adverting to the ground of prior, and immemorial usage, 
if the principle v/ere just, that the treaty of 17S3, from its peculiar character, 
remained in force in all its parts, notwi'Uslanding the war, no new stipulation 
was necessary to secure to the subjects of Great Britain the right of navigating 
the Mississippi as far as that right teas secured by the treaty of 1783; as on the 
other hand, no new sti.p''lation was necessary to secure to the people of the United 
States the librrty to fish audio dry and cure fish, within the exclusive jurisdic- 
tion of Great Britain. If they asked the navigation of the Mississippi, as a 
new claim, they could not expect we should grunt it wilhoul an equivalent ; if 
they asked it because it had been granted in 1783, they must recognise the claim 
6f the people of the United Stales to the liberty to fish and to dry and cure fish 
in question. 

To place both points beyond all future controversy, A MAJORITY of V3 de-^ 
termined to offer to admit an article confirming both rights. 

* This passage i<i here incorrectly quoletl by erroneous punctuation ; exhibiting a sense dif- 
ferent from that of the original — for which see p. 65; bulitis here, as published in the Bostqj) 
Statesman of -27 J uce. J^-. 



131 

jority only, and not the whole of the mission, decided to make that 
proposal. The words ol the despatch, in reference to that pro- 
posal, are, " to place both points beyond all future controversy, a 
majority of i(s determined to offer an article confirming both rights.'* 
Mr. Adams signed that despatch, and thus, at that time, attested Jt, 
fact which he now positively denies. 

The protocol was a mere recoi'd of the facts which had occurred 
at the conference, and in no way furnished proof that a proposition 
there made had or had not been previously decided on una- 
iiimously hy the mission making it. The protocol of the 1st of 
December stated that the proposal in question had been oftered by 
the American mission, and the note of the 14th of that month sim- 
ply recognised that fact. Neither that protocol or that note inti- 
mated that this proposal had been unanimously offered by the 
American mission. The majority who were competent before the 
10th of November, to determine on making that proposal, were 
equally competent to nmke it on the 1st of December, and to say, 
on the 14th of that month, that they had made it, and that " to it 
they had no objection, and had offered to accede." The minority, 
in not expressing their dissent at that conference, or b}' not refus- 
ing to sign that note, cannot be fairly adjudged to have inconsist- 
ently given their assent. They had opposed that proposal when 
and where only their opposition could have had a beneticial effect, 
and produced no evil. To have disturbed a conference with the 
British ministers by protestmg against an act of the majority, or to 
have refused to sign a note from an objection to that act, could 
have produced evil only. It would have discovered to the adverse 
party dissention in our councils, and thence might have had a disas- 
trous effect on the whole negotiation. In relation to the proposal 
itself, such a discovery to that party of our opposition to a particu- 
lar proposal, was calculated to enhance the value of that proposal. 
in their estimation, and to induce them to accept it ; thus consum- 
mating the very evil which we deprecated. The act of the majo- 
rity was, in respect to the other party, the act of the wliole ,• and 
Mr. Adams himself acknowledges that " it would have been equally 
valid without my concurrence or signature as with it." In his 
opinion, therefore, it would have been useless, and in mine, for the 
reasons just stated, it would have been highly mischievous, to have 
notoriously refused my acquiescence in the will of the majority. 
For what is called assent, concurrence, and joining in the offer, was 
merely an acquiescence in that will. For such an acquiescence 1 
have long since accounted to my conscience, and now cheerfully 
account to my country. By the principles of our institutions the 
minority, though free to disapprove the acts of the majority, are 
bound to submit to them. If Air. Adams does not agree with me 
in this view of the rights and duties of a minority, he will ouly 
present another instance in which we differ from each other in 
©pinion. 



132 

I did not give a silent vote, which Mr. Adams says '' it may be I 
did," after having said that I concurred with Mr. Clay in opposing 
it. " I did entertain, and express at Ghent, the opinions disclosed 
in my letter ;" and, if I did not disclose them " to the same extent,^* 
I did state them with sufficient precision and perspicuity to entitle 
them to all the consideration which they might deserve. 

Mr. Adams charges me with ascribing to my colleagues opinions 
which they never entertained, arguments which they never ad- 
vanced, and doctrines which they not only would disclaim with in- 
dignation, but diametrically opposed to those which they did main- 
tain. Let it be remembered here that ray letter received from 
Paris was confined, in justification of my conduct, to combating the 
opinions, arguments, and doctrines of the majority, which, in the 
despatch of the 25th of December, 1814 (d) were stated by them, 
or at least by Mr. Adams, for that despatch was drawn up by htm. 
Mr. Gallatin, indeed, in his separate letter of the same date, (c) 
does not go to the same extent. He merely states the assumption, 
of the peculiarity of the treaty of 1783. 

To support this charge, ftli'. Adams says I impute to my col- 
leagues an opinion that the Independence of the United States was 
derived from the treaty of 1783. 

In what part of my letter he finds such an imputation I am at a 
loss to discover. In contending against any peculiarity of that treaty, 
I simply said " I could not believe that the Independence of the 
United States was derived from the treaty of 1783." Without admit- 
ting such a derivation of our Independence, I could not perceive, 
indeed, any ground for the peculiarity ascribed to that treaty ; for a 
mere recognition of a prior right furnished none ; no other treaty 
containing such recognition having been considered as possessing it. 
In denyin:- such a derivation, although fairly inferrable from the 
doctrine of Mr. Adams, I charged no one with believing in it, but 
I removed the only foundation, as I conceived, on which the doc- 
trine of Mr. Adams could be supported ; and now, in disclaiming 
that foundation, unless he can show a better, he virtually renounces 
that doctrine. 

He says, also, that I impute to my colleagues " that they rested 
their claim to the fishing privilege on prescription;" but he adds 
that, " as the settlement of the colonies themselves had not been 
of time immemorial, it was not, and never zvas pretended to be a 
title by prescription." This appears to have been a recent dis- 
covery. In the letter of the 25th of December, above mentioned, 
it is said, " this liberty, then," (1783) " no nezv grant, but a mere 
recognition of a ^ri'or /•(^■/i^ a7tiuo//s enjoyed." And again, in the 
same letter, " without adverting to the ground of prior and imme- 
morial usage," &c. If I erroneously interred from these passages 
that a title was claimed from prescription, my error, I trust, will 
be considered a venial one. Mr. Adams can undoubtedly explain 
what he meant by '• a prior right, al~u^aijx enjoyed," and by "the 
ground of prior cuid immemorial usage." He did not mean, it 



133 

seems, rtny thing like prescription. Is he quite sure that, in dis- 
cussing this privilege, while in England, in 1815 or 1816, he 
never set up a prescriptive title, or a title from immenniorial usage ? 

Mr. Adams likewise asserts that I represent " the offer of an ar- 
ticle, granting to the British the right of navigating the Mississippi, 
as an equivalent for the fishing privilege in British jurisdiction." 
I certainly believed that it might have been so interpreted, even in 
its original form ; and that, if so interpreted, it could be made to 
mean more than would be meant by a simple continuance of that 
right, and of that privilege, as they stood, independently of each 
other, in the treaty of 1783. That the navigation of the Missis- 
sippi was, at last, offered, not under the principle of Mr. Adams, 
or the status ante bellum, which thus far were the same, but as an 
equivalent, sufficiently appears from the documents, notwithstand- 
ing the subsequent intimation that " we considered that offer as 
merely declaratory.'''' Besides, Mr. Gallatin, in his separate letter 
of the 26th of December, says, " if the right must be considered 
as abrogated by the war, we cannot regain it without an equivalent* 
We had none to offer but the recognition of the right to navigate 
the Mississippi, and we offered it.'''' 

I have now, I trust, satisfiictorily explained the inconsistencies 
and tissue of misrepresentations with which Mr. Adams has, with 
so much dignity and propriety, charged me. To whom inconsis* 
tency and misrepresentation can be justly imputed an impartial 
public is left to decide. 

With regard to what is considered so serious an offence, my not 
having shown my letter, written at Paris, to my colleagues, at the 
time, I will merely observe that the majority bad already, in the. 
despatch of the 25th of December, (c?) given their reasons for the 
affirmative, without taking any notice of the reasons on which the 
minority supported the negative. I believed it just, therefore, ta 
account for my conduct, by stating my objections to the reasons as- 
signed by the majority, and to these objections my letter was con- 
fined. I imputed to the majority nothing which they had cot 
alleged for themselves. Their case was before the government on 
their own showing, and 1 did not believe that there was any obli- 
gation to consult them on the case of the minority. To the only 
member of the mission who had a direct interest in that case, I did 
show, at the time, the letter written at Paris. I certainly was not 
aware of the proprienty or etiquette of communicating a private 
or separate letter to my colleagues, particularly as their private or 
separate letters had not been communicated to me. That they 
did occasionally write such letters is not only probable, but the let- 
ter of Mr. Gallatin, of the 25th of December, furnishes proof in 
point. That letter of Mr. Gallatin was never shown to me, and I 
certainly never felt myself aggrieved because it was not, although 
he stated in it the grounds in which he had acted as one of the ma- 
jority. 

1 here most solemnlr protest, as Mr. Adams appears to believe 

17 



134 

a protest to be necesary to prove sincerity, that nothing which I 
have written was directly or remotely intended to impute either 
weakness, absurdity, or treachery, to the majority, and to infer 
such an imputation from my letter would seem to require a mind 
distorted by passion and a "jealousy that discolours every thing." 

There was a difference, and I believe, an honest difference of 
opinion between me and some of my colleagues, on certain points, 
and if I felt it to be my duty to act according to my own, I certainly 
had the right to state the grounds of my opinion to those to whom 
I was immediately accountable for my conduct. In doing this, 1 
accused no one — and if in endeavouring to prove that my opinion 
was correct, I implied that the opinion of those who differed from 
me was incorrect, I did no more towards them, than what, from the 
very nature of the case, was indispensable, or than what they, in 
defending their opinion, must necessarily have done towards me. 
Mr. Adams, indeed, goes much further. He appears to believe 
that self-vindication cannot be separated from reproach. In a con- 
scientious difference of opinion between fallible men, who reason 
but to err, there can be no just cause for reproach ^ but a pretend- 
ed difference of opinion between infallible men must necessarily 
imply wilful error somewhere. 1 do not pretend to infallibility, 
and sincerely pity those who do. It may be less difficult to some 
minds to abuse the man, than to refute the argument. " Censure, 
reproach, and misrepresentation is, indeed, a shorter and easier 
process." 

I still differ with Mr. Adams on his doctrine that the treaty of 
1783, by I'eason of its peculiarity, could not be abrogated by war. 

I still differ with him concerning the relative value of the navi- 
gation of the Mississippi and the fishing privilege. 

I still differ with him, in respect to the consistency of his prin- 
ciple with the proposal which was first decided on, and after a pe- 
riod of three weeks, actually offered by a majority. 

I shall probably continue to ditTer with him on these points, un- 
less he can produce other and better reasons for my conversion 
than those contained in his remarks. 

For his doctrine, he appeals to a class of treaties which are not 
known to exist, and to the ordeal of minds with which he has not 
made us acquainted. He relies on instinct when he says " I stop 
here for a moment to observe how instinctivclij both parties recur 
to the treaty of 1783, with a consciousness that it was yet in full 
force,'''' when at the very first conference the British ministers gave 
us notice that the fishing privilege, granted by that treaty, would 
not be renewed, without an equivalent, thus considering that treaty 
to be at an end. 

Express renunciation or conquest, that is, consent on our part 
or force on the part of Great Britain, mi!.i;}it, according to Mr. 
Adams himself, abrogate our rights under the treaty of 1783; and 
these are precisely the means only by which we can be deprived 
of our rights under any treaty. The peculiarity, therefore, for 



1^ 

which Mr. Adams contends, is left on a very equivocal foundatiout 
Mr. Adams insinuates that the convention of 1818 confirms his 
doctrine, and gives a final stroke to mine. That convention does 
not contain the slightest allusion to the doctrine of Mr, Adams, nor 
even to the treaty of 1783, but settles the differences which had 
arisen on the subject by a grant entirely new. 

By the way, if an express renunciation was necessary, on our 
part, to surrender the fishing privilege, the implicit renunciation 
which Mr. Adams says was made by the British, cannot be suffi- 
cient to surrender their right to navigate the Mississippi — accord- 
ing to Mr. Adams, therefore, that right is unimpaired. 

I certainly v/as not willing to renounce or to surrender the fishing 
privilege to force or conquest, but I was willing to adopt a doctrine 
which I believed, and still believe, to be the true one ; and which, 
ii it deprived us of the benefit of the fishing privilege, released us 
at the same time from the evils of the British right to navigate 
the Mississippi, because I Relieved those evils outweighed that be- 
nefit. 1 have seen no cause since to change this opinion. 

All that Mr. Adams says, in his remarks concerning the fishing 
privilege, is " that we had renounced certain parts, which without 
being of much use to ourselves, had been found very inconvenient 
to the British ; and that my views with regard to the magnitude of 
the fishing interest, he believes to be as incorrect as my principles 
on which I would have surrendered it. If I erred in my estimate 
of the fishing privilege, there is nothing in these remarks of Mr. 
Adams to demonstrate my error. I acted on the best information 
which I had at the time. And, if I erred, my error could not de- 
serve reproach. I believe, however, that the views, disclosed in 
my letter, did notjunderrate or depreciate that privilege. The most 
authentic information which I have until now been able to obtain 
on the subject, justifies the opinion which I then entertained in re- 
lation to it. I am informed by respectable citizens well acquainted 
with the business, that few or no fish are now dried or cured within 
the British jurisdiction, and that most, if not all that are taken 
there, are taken by the few fishermen who have not sufficient capi- 
tal to procure vessels of adequate size and strength to fish on the 
grand banks or in the open sea ; and that even those few fishermen 
are annually decreasing in number. 

With regard to the British right to navigate the Mississippi, Mr. 
Adams says that it was a mere phantom — that they had enjoyed it for 
30years without Msmo- it — that in all human probability it never would 
have been of more beneficial use to the British nation than would 
be to the people of the United States the right of navigating the 
Bridgewater Canal or the Danube ; and that, in surrendering it, 
the British would have surrendered absolutely nothing. Although 
all this was not said at Ghent to the same extent, yet Mr. Adams cer- 
tainly did express there his great contempt of the British right to 
reach and navigate thai river. I have good reason to believe, how- 
ever, that there was not another member of the mission who en- 



136 

teitained the same opinion. Each member estimated dilierentry 
the importance of that right according to his own mformation and 
impressions. Some believed it to be of more importance — some 
of less importance, and some of about the same importance, as the 
fishing privilege, but not one, excepting Mr. Adams, considered it 
a mere phantom, worth absolutely nothing. Mr. Gallatin appears 
to have thought it equal, at least, to the fishing privilege. In his 
separate letter, already mentioned, (c) he says " if the right" (the 
fishing privilege) " must be considered as abrogated by the war, 
we cannot regain it without an equivalent. We had none to offer 
but the recognition of their right to navigate the Mississippi, and 
we offered it. On this last supposition," (the abrogation of the 
treaty of 1783, by war) " this right is also lost to them, and in a 
general point of view we have certainly lost nothing." The neces- 
sary construction of this clause is, that, by abrogating the Missis- 
sippi right, we gained as much as we lost by abrogating the fishing 
privilege — and thus, in a general point of view we have lost nothing 
by abrogating both; thus making the two of equal value. 

I certainly differed very much from Mr. Adams in his estimate 
of this right under his doctrine, united with his construction, or 
under his proposal. I did not appreciate it by the mere beneficial 
or legitimate uses that might be made of it. Its importance 1 con- 
sidered to be derived from its evils — from the abuse of it, and from 
the pernicious facility which it would afford to British smugglers 
and British emissaries — to defraud the revenue and to excite the 
Indians. If our instructions, of the 15th of April, 1813, had been 
no longer imperative, they furnished, at least, evidence in point, 
which was entitled to attention. Th'fe privilege of British traders 
from Canada, and the Northwest Company, were not to be renewed, 
because " the pernicious effects of this privilege had been most se?isi- 
blyfelt in the present war, by the inflnence which it gave over our 
Indians, whose whole force has been wielded by means thereof against 
the inhabitants of our western States and Territories. 

We ourselves had borne testimony, during the negotiation, to 
the magnitude of the evil resulting from allowing to British traders 
Jmd agents access to our Indians. In our note to the British minis- 
ters of the 21st of September, 1814, we say, " The undersigned 
very sincerely regret to be obliged to sa}-^ that an irresistible 7nass 
of evidence, consisting principally of the correspondence of British 
officers and agents, part only of which has already been published 
in America, establishes, beyond all rational doubt, the fact that a 
constant system of excitement to these hostilities was pursued by 
British Traders and ^igents, who had access to our Indians, not only 
without being discountenanced, but with frequent encouragement 
by the British authorities. And if they had ever dissuaded the 
Indians from commencing hostilities, it was only by advising them, 
as in prudence, to suspend their attacks until Great Britain could 
recognise them in the war." 

Here was surely evidenQe to prove the danger of giving to Bri- 



137 

iish Traders and Agents access to our Indians. If this access', 
owing to existing circumstances, had not hitherto, to any great ex- 
tent, been practically derived from the right to approach and to 
navigate the Mississippi, yet this right, having become the only 
means of access, would undoubtedly have been made the thorough- 
fare of this nefarious intercouse. If 1 erred in this opinion, still 
1 should hope to find charity for my motives. As a citizen of Mas- 
sachusetts, I believed that justice and sound policy required that 
we should treat fairly and liberally every other section of the 
Union, and to do as we would be done by. As a minister of the 
United States, it was my duty to act impartially towards the great 
whole. 

The inconsistency of Mr. Adams' doctrine with his conduct, in 
relation to the fishing liberty, needs no illustration. If that liberty 
w-as, as he alleged, inseparable from the general right, why sepa- 
rate them, by offering a specific pi'oposition for the one, and leav- 
ing the other to rest on the treaty of 1783 ? If this liberty was, by 
our instructions, included in the right, why discuss it, as those in- 
structions forbid us to bring that right into discussion ? If this 
liberty was an attribute of our Independence, why rely for its 
continuance on the peculiarity of a treaty, and at the same time 
offer to make it an article of another treaty, where there could be 
no such peculiarity to perpetuate it ? If that liberty was indeed 
an attribute of our Independence, I say that it depended on no 
treaty, but on those eternal principles on which it had been de- 
clared previous to any treaty — and on that high spirit and resistless 
energy which dictated and accomplished that declaration. When- 
ever that Independence, or any of the essential attributes of the 
sovereignty, which necessarily results from it, shall be denied or 
questioned, 1 trust in God and the valour, not of the West only, 
but of all, that we shall not resort to the dreams of a visionary, or 
to the dead letter of a treaty, to assert our rights and rank among 
the nations of the world. 

I shall now close this defence against an unprovoked and unprin- 
cipled attack, trusting it, for my vindication, with the justice and 
liberality of my fellow citizens. If I had been previously entrust- 
ed with the remarks of Mr. Adams, as he frankly was with the 
paper which has mainly been the subject of them, 1 should have 
had an opportunity of simultaneously ofi'ering these explanations, 
and been spared the unpleasant necessity of thus appealing to the 
public. If I have not retorted the virulence and acrimony of Mr. 
Adams, it is because I have not felt them sulhciently to forget the 
respect which I owe to myself and to the public. 1 regret, equally 
with Mr. Adams, the necessity which he has supposed to exist for 
the virulent character of his remarks, but 1 shall have abundant 
reason to rejoice, if, in directing the infirmities of his temper against 
me, they shall have been diverted from a course in which they 
might have been disastrous to the country. 

JONATHAN RUSSELL. 



138 

From the JVatmial Intelligencer of July 17, 1822» 
MR. ADAMS' REJOINDER TO MR. RUSSELL. 

Mr. Jonathan Russell having thought proper to transfer the scene 
of his attack upon the character and conduct of his colleagues, the 
majority of the late mission to Ghent and especially upon mine, 
from the House of Representatives of the United States, where he 
first volunteered to bring it forward, to the newspapers, it becomes 
necessary for my defence, and that of my colleagues, against this 
assault, to apply to his new statements and representations a few of 
those " correctives^'' which, at the call of the House of Represent- 
atives, 1 did apply to the original and duplicate of his letter of 
11th February, 1815. 

The paper published by Mr. Russell in the Boston Statesman, of 
the 27th of June last, bears the same relation to truth that his ori- 
ginal letters bear to their duplicates, and his sentiments to his 
signatures. 

Nearly two columns of the paper published in the Boston States- 
man, are occupied with a narrative of circumstances which preced- 
ed, attended, and followed, the delivery, by Mr. Russell, at the 
Department of State, on the 22d of April last, of the paper pur- 
porting to be a duplicate of his letter of 1 1th February, 1815, from 
Pans, to the then Secretary of Stale. In the course of this narra- 
tive, Mr. Russell makes the following admission ; how reluctantly, 
the very structure of the sentence in which it is contained, will 
show ; and it is proper that it should be exhibited in his own words : 

" I certainly did believe that I was permitted to make those cor- 
*' rections of the copy in possession, which appeared to me to be 
" proper to exhibit my case most advantageously before thattribu- 
•' nal" — [the tribunal of the public] 

The reasons of Mr. Russell for believing that he was permitted, 
in 1822, to make corrections which happened to suit his own pur- 
poses, in a paper furnished by himself to be communicated to the 
House of Representatives of the United States, as a specific letter 
written by him in Paris, in the year 1815, are as singular and sur- 
prising as the belief itself. They consist of insinuations and infer- 
ences that he had furnished the paper at my solicitation ; that the 
word " duplicate,'''' written upon it, with his own hand, gave no 
further intimation or assurance that it was so ; that 1 had the sole 
power to publish it or not, as 1 might judge proper, and to consult 
my own feelings and interests in forming my decision ; and that the 
paper was not to be exhibited to the public without the previous 
examination and consent of the adverse party. And with these 
ingenious principles, he has interwoven a statement of facts, with 
which he has believed himself permitted to take the same liberty 
that he had taken with his own letter ; making in them those cor- 
rections which appeared to him necessary to exhibit his case most 
advantageously before the tribunal of the public. 



139 

Frail and tottering as is this scaffolding to support the cause ot 
Mr. Russell's candour, I am concerned to say, (hat by a mere state- 
ment of the real facts, it must be taken entirely from under him. 

The real facts are these : 

On the 17th of January last, the House of Representatives of the 
United States adopted the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That tlie President of the United States be requested to cause fo 
'* be laid before this House, all the correspondence which led to the Treaty of 
•' Ghent, togeiher with the Protocol, wliich has not been made public, and 
•* which, in his opinion, it may not be improper to disclose.'' 

In the ordinary course of business, this resolution was by th6 
President referred to the Department of State, to report the papers 
to be communicated to the House, in compliance with the call. 

In examining among the archives of the Department for those 
papers, I found among them a short letter from Mr. Russell to the 
Secn^tary of State, dated the 25th of December, 1814, the day after 
the signature of the treaty. It was not marked private, but it re- 
lated principally to Mr. Uussell's own affairs ; and, referring to the 
joint letter of the mission, of the same 25th of December, 1814, in 
which it had been stated that a majority of it had determined to offer 
to the British an article confirming the navigation of the Mississip- 
pi to the British, and the fisheries to us, as stipulated in the treaty 
of 1783, it acknowledged, in candour, that he, (Mr. Russell,) was 
in the minority on that occasion, and reserved to himself the power 
of communicating thereafter his reasons for being in the minority. 

With Mr. Russell's candour'xn the transaction, at the time, I shall 
not now trouble the public. It was in the examination of the files 
for the purpose of answering the call of the House, that I first dis- 
ccf^ered the existence of this letter ; and a question occurred tome 
whether it should be communicated with the other documents to 
the House or not. It was not strictly within the letter of the call, 
for it was not a part of the correspondence which led to the treaty 
— having been written the day after the treaty was signed. It had 
no bearing upon the information which had been assigned to the 
House as the motive for the call ; and the only fact relating to the 
negotiation which it communicated, was, that upon one vote which 
had been taken in the joint mission during the negotiation, and that 
vote upon a question whether an offer should be made, which^ 
when made, had been rejected, Mr. Russell had been in the mi- 
nority, and reserved to himself the power of assigning his reason*, 
thereafter, for the purpose of vindicating his motives. It was doubt- 
ful whether it would be proper to disclose this difference of opinion, 
and Mr. Russell's solicitude to vindicate his motives for voting 
against a rejected offer, which had terminated in nothing. But, on 
the other hand, this might be, of all the documents relating to the 
negotiation, the most desirable one to the purposes for which the 
call had been made. The call might have been made with the 
special intention of eliciting this letter, or the disclosure of the fact 
u hirh it attested. T" have withheld thr If^tfer !nif:;ht have given 



140 

rise to surmises of special motives for veiling from {he eye of Con- 
gress, and of the nation, the discovery of that fact. As Mr. Rus- 
sell was upon the spot, and a member of the House, I determined 
to mention the letter to him, and place it at his option whether it 
should be communicated to the flouse or not. I did so, at my 
house, as he has stated j and it was on the 26th of January But 
Mr. Russell did not say that he had no distinct recollection of the 
letter, to which 1 alluded, and that he wished to see it before he 
gave his consent to its publication. I had not asked his consent to 
its publication. I had told him there was such a letter ; and left 
it at his option whether it should be communicated in the answer 
to the call of the House of Representatives, or not. His first re- 
ply was, that he thought it was a private letter, which it would be 
improper to communicate to the House ; but, after a pause, as if 
recollecting himself, he said he wished to see the letter, before giv- 
ing a definitive answer. To this I immediately assented. Mi*. 
Russell accordingly repaired to the office, and saw his letter ; not 
in my presence, or in the room occupied by me, but in that of Mr. 
Bailey, the clerk who has charge of the diplomatic documents. 
Mr. Russell then desired to examine the whole of the correspond- 
ence relating to the Ghent negotiation, and afterwards twice in suc- 
cession requested to be furnished with copies of one paragraph of 
the instructions to the commissioners, of 15th April, 1813. That 
paragraph is the one which, in the duplicate, is cited so emphatic- 
ally, and with so many cumulative epithets, in support of the charge 
against the majority of the mission, of having violated both the let- 
ter and the spirit of their explicit and implicit instructions. After 
all these examinations, and after a request to be furnished with a 
copy of this most pregnant paragraph, in all of which he was jp- 
dulged to the extent of his wishes, he told me that he saw no ob- 
iection to the communication to the House of his separate letter 
of 25th December, IB14 ; with the exception of a part of it, not 
relating to the negotiation. He was informed that the part only in- 
dicated by himself would be communicated ; and accordingly that 
oart only was communicated. Mr. Russell then added, that there 
was another letter, written at Paris, conformably to the indication 
in that of 25th December, 1814, and containing his reasons therein 
alluded to ; and iiohich he wished might also be communicated rvith 
the rest of the documents, to the House. This WaS the first intima- 
tion I had ever received of the existence of the letter of 1 1th Fe- 
bruary, 1815; and I told Mr. Russell that, if it could be found up- 
on the files of the Department, it should be communicated with 
the rest. I directed, accordingly, that search should be made, and 
afterwards that it should be repeated, among all the files of the 
Department, for this letter. It was not to be found. After a delay 
of several days, for repeating these inefiectual searches, I deemed 
it necessary to report, in answer to the call of the House ; and the 
documents were all sent, including that portion of his letter of 25th 
V)<?cember3 1814, which he himself had marked for communication. 



141 

It was not alone to me that Mr. Russell had expressed the wWu 
that his letter of 11th February, 1815, might be communicated 
witli the other documents to the House. He had, as appears by 
the statement of Mr. Bailey, repeatedly manifested the same wish 
to him. He had even gone so far as to inform him, that he had a 
copy of it at Mendon, and to inquire of him whether a copy of it 
from himself would be received at the Department, for communi- 
cation to the House. He did not, indeed, make the same inquiry of 
me, nor was I then informed that he had made it to Mr. Bailey. If 
I had been, I should have immediately answered that it would be 
received and communicated. I knew not what were the contents 
of the letter : but I knew that, whatever they might be, I could 
have no objection to their being communicated, at the desire of Mr. 
Kussell himself: and far from suspecting him capable of believino- 
himself permitted to Di:-.!:e any alterations in the copy, to suit pre- 
sent purposes, I should have thought the bare suspicion an outrao-e 
upon his honour. 

But 1 had no desire of my own that the letter should be commu- 
nicated. I regretted even th;it Mr. Russell had chosen that the 
part of his letter of 25ih Decensber, 1814, which announced his 
disagreement with the majority of the mission, should be commu- 
nicated. I regretted that he had ever thought proper to inform 
the Secretary of State what had been his vote upon that occasion ; 
and I was perfectly assured, that there never had existed a moment 
when there could have been any necessity for him to vindicate his 
motives for that vote. I was assured that neither the government 
nor the nation would ever have inquired of him how he had voted, 
if he had not been so over-earnest in his solicitude to tell them. 
And I was equally convinced, that at\er he had told them, it would 
not ultimately redound to his credit. I had no feelings of enmity 
towards Mr. Russell. Our private intercourse had been, for more 
than ten years, that of friendship, which, in no instance whatevei', 
had been, in word, deed, or thought, violated by me. As an asso- 
ciate in a trust of great importance, the general result of which had 
been satisfactory to the country, he had always had claims, sacred 
to me, to my peculiar regard. With the high and honourable du- 
ties of that great trust, I had mingled no little expedients of self- 
aggrandizement by the debasement of any of my colleagues. I 
had sown no seed of future accusation against a brother commis- 
sioner, in the shell of a pretended vindication of myself. I had laid 
up no root of rancorous excitement, to be planted, after the lapse 
of years, in the soil of sectional prejudice, or party prepossession. 
I lamented to discover that Mr. Russell had not so dealt with his 
colleagues of the majority ; and I was mortified to see the earnest- 
ness with which he appeared determined to bhzon forth this dis- 
agreement of opinion, and the part that he had taken in it, to the 
world. I felt that it neither became me to object to the cnmmu- 
nication of either of his letters to the House, if desired by him, 
nor officiouslv to offer him facilities for the communication, which 

18 



lis 

he liad not suggested to me himself. I, therefore, did not ask him 
to furnish, liiniself, a copy of his letter from Paris, to be communi- 
cated to the House ; but, on the 21st of February, reported to the 
President, for communication to the House, all the other docu- 
ments, embraced by their call of the 17th January preceding. 

The message from the President to the House, communicating 
ihe documents, was delivered on the 23d of February, and was or- 
dered to be laid on the table. 

On the 19th of April, the following resolution was adopted b}- the 
House, having been first moved the day before : 

'^ Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to 
be communicated to this House, if not injurious to the public good, any letter, 
or communication, which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, Es(}. 
one of the Ministers of the United States who concluded the Treaty of Ghent, 
after the signature of that Treaty, and whicii was written in conformity to the 
indications contained in said Minister's letter, dated at Ghent, 25th December, 
3814;' 

It will be observed, that nearly two months had intervened be- 
tween the report of the Ghent treaty documents to the House, and 
this second call, which Mr. Russell has admitted was made at his 
suggestion. 

On Saturday, the 20th of April, the day after the adoption of the 
resolution of the House, and even before it had been oflicially re- 
ferred to the Department for an answer, Mr. Daniel Brent, the 
chief clerk of the Department, without consulting me, but knowing 
the anxious desire that I should feel, of being enabled to report 
the paper called for by the House, knowing also that it was not 
upon the files of the Department, called upon Mr. Russell, at his 
lodgings, and inquired of him whether he could furnish the letter 
desired ; and was told by Mr. Russell that he could, and would de- 
Jiver it to the President. Mr. Brent, it seems, suggested that it 
would be better that it should be delivered as a duplicate than aa 
a copy, to which Mr. Russell assented. This distinction, which has 
reference chiefly to the forms of office, would not have occurred to 
me. Between a copy, marked a? such by the writer, signed by him, 
and all in his own hand-writing, and a duplicate, furnished as such 
also by the writer, I can perceive no difference of substance, 
though, as evidence in a court of justice, or as a document in the 
public archives, one might bear the character of an original paper, 
and the other only of a copy. Mr. Brent had too much respect for 
Mr. Russell, to imagine it possible, whether he gave the paper as 
a copy or as a duplicate, that he should give it other than as the let- 
ter originally written, and called for by the resolution of the 
House. 

Mr. Russell, however, did assent to the suggestion of xMr. Brent, 
and, with his own hand, wrote the word " duplicate" on the paper, 
which he had already prepared to deliver, to be reported in answer 
to the call of the House. He did more : he erased with a scraper 
the word "copy," which he had previously written in its steadj 
aod the traces of which are still discernible on the paper. 



143 

What, then, does Mr. Russell mean, when, in the Boston States*- 
man of 27th June last, he sa^'s, that when he delivered the paper 
at the Department, to Mr. Breot, on the 22d of April, " the word 
" [duplicate] had indeed been written on it, in consequence of his 
" suggestion, as above stated : but 1 gave no further intimation, 
*' much less any assurance that it ivas so." These are Mr. Rus- 
sell's own words ; and what can they mean ? They have been, at 
least by some portion of the public, understood to mean, that the 
paper had been styled a duplicate, not by Mr. Russell, but by me. 
O no ! the word was written with Mr. Russell's own hand ; and 
when I received the paper I knew not that there ever had passed 
9 word between Mr. Brent and him whether it should be delivered 
as a duplicate or a copy. The Boston Statesman, of the same day 
in which his reply is published, says "Mr. Russell, without much 
reflection, consented" (to give it as a duplicate.) I should think he 
had time enough for reflection, while at work with the scraper, to 
efface the word " copy," for which it was substituted. Mr. Rus- 
sell's meaning is, therefore, that, although he wrote the word dur 
plicate with his own hand, yet he did not intend it should be re- 
ceived as an intimation, much less as an assurance, " that it 

WAS SO." 

Mr. Russell had been explicitly told by Mr. Brent, that his call 
to inquire whether he could furnish the paper called tor by the re- 
solution of the House, had not been at my desire, or with my know- 
ledge, but of his own motion. But it seems Mr. Russell did not be^- 
lieve him ; and instead of delivering the letter, as he had said he 
would, to the President, he brought it to the Department, and de- 
livered it to Mr. Brent himself; observing that he was indifferent 
whether it was communicated to the House or not ; but, if it should 
not be, he wished it njightbe returned to him. 

The singularity of this observation is not among the least extra- 
ordinary incidents of this transaction. Mr. Russell, who, while the 
tirst resolution of the 17th of January, calling for the Ghent treaty 
document?, was to be reported upon by the Department of State, 
had expressed to me, and repeatedly to Mr. Bailey, the wish that his 
letter from Paris should be communicated — Mr. Russell, at whose 
suggestion the specific call from the House of the 19th of April, 
for that letter, had been moved— Mr. Russell, who in the interval 
had written to Mendon for the original draft of his letter, had re- 
ceived it from Mendon, and on the morning after the resolution of 
the House calling for it, was already prepared with a " copy" of it 
to deliver to the President, a copy consisting of seven folio sheets 
of paper — transforms this copy, at the suggestion of Mr. Brent, 
into a duplicate, and after having again on Saturday declared to Mr. 
Brent his wish that it might be communicated to the House, brings 
it on Monday morning to the Department, and in delivering it to 
Mr. Brent, says he is indifferent whether it should be communicat- 
ed to the House or not ; but, if not, wishes it may be returned t^ 
him. 



144 

What was the meaning of this tardy hesitation and new-born in- 
difterence, whether it should be communicated or not ? Why does 
he say that the apphcation from the Department of Slate for his 
letter was made without any previous intimation, suggestion, or 
encouragement on his part ; and that, had it not been made, that 
paper would never have been left at the Department of State, nor 
in any other manner presented to the public ? Why did he bring it 
to the Department ? He had told Mr. Brent that he would deliver 
it to the President ; and of this disposal of it, Mr. Brent bad ap- 
proved. Why does he represent it as a demand upon him from tlie 
Department of State of a private letter, never intended for the pub- 
lic ? Neither I-nor any person at the Department of State, knew 
that the letter was private. Mr. Russell knew it, althoogh he had 
prepared his copy or his duplicate, without marking it as such. He 
had told me, when I mentioned to him that his short letter of De- 
cember 25, 1814, was among the documents of the negotiation at 
the Department, and asked him whether he chose it should be 
communicated to the House ; he had then at first told me that he 
thought that was a private letter, which it would be improper to 
communicate ; but when, after having examined it, he decided that 
])art of it should be communicated, he had told me there was ano- 
ther letter written from Paris, which he wished might also be com- 
municated. He had not spoken of it as a private letter, nor did he 
deliver the duplicate as such to the Department. He omitted from 
it the word private, which had been written by himself upon the 
original. This omission was doubtless one of those corrections, 
which appeared to him proper to exhibit his case most advantageously, 
before the trihunal of the public. lis tendency certainly was to 
excite a suspicion in the public mind, that the original letter was or 
had been upon the tiles of the Department, and that in the answer 
to the prior call of the House of 17th January, it had been sup- 
pressed. 

Mr. Russell's delivery of his duplicate at the Department of State 
was entirely spontaneous. It had not even been asked of him by 
Mr. Brent ; and the inquiry which Mr. Brent had made of him, 
whether he could furnish a duplicate of the letter called for by the 
resolution of the House, if application should be made to him for it, 
had been without my knowledge ; and Mr. Brent had told him so. 
Mr. Russell delivered his duplicate at the Department as a publio 
letter, and as if the original itself had been also public. What then 
does Mr. Russell mean, when he says that he left it for my exami- 
nation ? What does he mean, by saying that I had the sole power to 
publish it or not, as I might judge proper, and to consult my own 
feelings and interests, in forming my decision ? There was*^' a reso- 
hition of the House of Representatives," calling.upon the President 
to cause to be communicated to them a letter specifically designat- 
ed. The writer of that letter, after repeated expressions more 
than two months before to me and to Mr. Bailey, that he wished 
that letter might be communicated to the House, now brought to the 



145 

Department a duplicate of it, and says I was at liberty to publish i»- 
or not, as it might suit my feelings and interests. Mr. Russell is 
not so ignorant of the dutiesof a Secretary of State as not to know 
that, in the usual course of business, the resolution of the House 
was referred by the President to the Department of State for a 
report, and that when once his letter had neen delivered by himself 
at the Department, it was my indispensable duly to report a copy 
of it to the President for communication to the House. Had it di- 
rectly charged me with treason to my country, as it indirectly did 
little less, my only and inflexible duty as Secretary of State was, to 
report it to the President for communication to the House. By the 
terms of the resolution of the House, the President indeed mitrht 
have withheld it from the House, if in his judgment the communi 
cation would be injurions to the public interest : but of that, the 
President, and not 1, was the judge. Suppose even that the Presi- 
dent, in forming his judgment, had thought proper to consult my 
opinion upon it, with what face could I advise that it should be 
withheld ? If the letter was not a tissue of misrepresentations, the 
Secretary of State, and the Minister of the United States in France 
were men unfit to hold any station whatever in the service of their 
country ; and that was the impression evidently intended to bepro- 
duced by the letter, at least throughout the largest and most o-row-. 
ing section of the Union. Upon whatprfetence could / have advis- 
ed the President to withhold the communication as injurious to the 
public interest ? If there was truth in the letter, its contents could 
not be too soon known to Congress and to the nation. It was fitting 
that the conspirators against the peaceful and unoflfendin"- inhabit- 
ants of the Western Country, should be unmasked before the pub- 
lic, and that the world of the West should be apprized of the whole 
extent of their obligations to the great confider in their valour and 
in God. 

On receiving the paper, therefore, my only duty was to report a 
copy of it to the President, for communication to the House, in an- 
swer to their coll. On perusal of it, I found that it was mnrked 
duplicate^ but not private, and that it bore date " Paris, 11 Febru- 
ary, 1822." 

My first impression certainly was, that the error of this date was 
in the time, and not in the place. I supposed it an inadvertency, 
such as not unfrequently happens in copying papers of date othei- 
than the current year, which in the hurry of writing is substituted 
unconsciously for the date of the original. I did not then perceive 
that the word co/)?/ had been written close at the side of the word 
duplicate, and scraped out. The erasure had been made with a 
cautious and delicate hand ; its attenuation of the texture of the pa- 
per, was not perceptible to an unsuspecting eye ; and in the fresh- 
ness of the ink when performed, must have appeared to be com- 
plete. In the progress of blackening, incidental to ink after it has 
been some days written upon paper, the traces of the word goon 
became perceptible, and are now apparent upon its face. Both the 



146 

words, the date, and the whole letter, are in the hand-writing of 
Mr. Russell. 

On reading the letter through, I found it had been composed 
with a, view to be received and understood as if all written at Paris, 
in February, 1813. Yet 1 was confident it had not all been so 
written. I was particularly struck with the following passages. 
" 1 will frankly avow, however, that my impressions were, and still 
" are, that Great Britain, calculating on the success of the power- 
*' ful expedition which she has sext against New-Orleans, confi- 
" dently expected that she would have become llie mistress of 
•' Louisiana, and all its waters ; and that she did not, in this event, 
" intend to abandon her conquest under the terms of the treaty of 
«' .Ghent." 

" If she he disappointed irj her views on Louisiana, and I trust 
" in God and the valour of the West tbats/^e zdll be, I shall not be 
♦' surprised, if, herenficr, she grants us the fishing privilege, which 
" costs her absolutely nothing, without any extravagant equivalent 
*' whatever." 

" At any rate, we are still at liberty to negotiate for that privilege,. 
" and to offer for it an equivalent, fair in its comparative value, and 
"just in its relative eifecls." 

" I trust in God she will be" — in a letter dated Paris, II Febru- 
ary, 1822 — signed Jonathan Russell — addressed to the Hon. .Tames 
Monroe, Secretary of State — and delivered by Mr. Russell to be 
communicated to thp; House of Representatives, in answer to a call 
suggested by himself for a letter written by him in 1815! And 
Mr. Russell charges me with disingenuousness, for Qommunicating 
this paper to the House ! And Mr. Russell talks of respect for the 
Representatives of the people of the United States ! I am in the 
judgment of my country, upon this state of facts. But as for Mr. 
Russell, when he wrote that — " 1 trust in God, she will be" — r/id 
came to the name of God — did not the pen drop from his hand ? 

I took the letter to the President, and expressing to him my sus- 
picion, that the above passage particularly had never been written 
at Paris, requested him to cause search to be made among his pri- 
vate papers for the original letter, if there ever had been one. 
The search was accordingly made, and the letter was found. On 
comparing them together, 1 immediately perceived that the original 
was marked private ; which the duplicate was not. I turned im- 
mediately to the prophesies of the duplicate : in the original they 
were not. I looked to the passage in the duplicate, which repre- 
sents the fishing privilege, notonly as utterly insignificant, and trifling 
in value, but as having been proved to be so by the best informa- 
tion " we (the plenipotentiaries at Ghent) could obtain on the sub- 
ject." There was a whole system of misrepresentation in these 
words we coidd obtain : for they represented the incorrect estimate 
of the value of the fishing privilege which they introduced, as the 
result of information obtained by the whole mission at Ghent, as 
karing been there discussed, and as aggravating the wrong of tb^ 



147 

majority, in offering so extravagant an equivaleiit, for what they 
knew, upon their own inquiries, to be of so little value. Knowing, 
as 1 (lid, that the information was all misinformation ; that no in- 
formation concerning the value of the privilege had been, or could 
have been, obtained by the joint mission ; and that, excepting some 
doubts as to its value, expressed, not by Mr. Russell, it had never 
been even a subject of conversation in the mission — I turned to 
the real letter from Paris, to see how the writer had expressed 
himself there, and found he had written, " according to the best 
information that / can obtain on the subject." 1 saw immediately 
that all that tale about the obscurity and humidity of the atmos- 
[ihere, in the high northern latidudes, to degrade the value of the 
J>abrador fishery, was not in the original even pretended to have 
been information sought or obtained by the joint mission ; that the 
discovery which it discloses was not pretended to have been ever 
made known to the mission ; that the fogs, so pernicious to the 
curing of the lish, wei-e in the original letter, if not merely the 
vapours ofjMr. Russell's imagination, at least no more than the re- 
sult of the best information that he could obtain. And 1 instantly 
saw, too, the motives for the substitution of the words u^e could ia 
in the duplicate, for the words / ca?i, in the original. As the ori- 
ginal had been written the bill of indictment which it virtually con- 
tained against the majority of the mission, left them at liberty to 
say, in their defence, that if they had overrated the value of the fish- 
ing liberty, it had been at least an honest error. It left them at 
liberty to inquire, why Mr. Russell, in their discussions upon the 
iishery question, had not revealed to them this great discovery of 
obscurity and humidity and incessant fogs, which lessened so much 
the value of the tishing liberty. The we could of the duplicate 
took from them all such means of defence. It represented them 
as having wilfully sinned against their better knowledge ; as hav- 
ing sought information of the value of the tishing liberty — as hav- 
ing obtained proof of its worthlessness — and j/e/ as having persisted 
in otfering for it an equivalent which was to let in British smugglers, 
British emmissaries, and all the horrors of Indian warfare, upon 
the unoffending inhabitants of the West. Was this one of those 
corrections which Mr. Russell believed himself permitted to make, 
which appeared to him proper, to exhibit his case most advantage- 
ously before the tribunal of the public ? 

Proceeding in the comparison between the two papers, when ( 
came to that sublime panegyric upon the fishermen to atone for the 
absolute surrender and eager sacrifice of their liberties ; to that 
eheering cup of consolation doled out to them as a peace-oflering 
for the extinguishment, as far as Mr. Russell's labours could avail, 
of their means of subsistence, " that the essential security and pros- 
perity of the many, must be preferred to the convenience and mi- 
nor interests of the few ;" to that swelling peal of self- applause, 
for early prepossessions silenced, and local predilections subdued ; 
-ill suh«titated in the duplicate, for a mere postscripted trust, in th« 



on2;inal, that his argument to demoiislrate the abro<;;ition of the 
treaty of 1783, by the war, and the consequent disconlinuance of tlie 
Jishing privilege, would not be ascribed to any hostility to those in- 
terested ill it — the mingled emotions at the bottom of the soul of 
the writer, betrayed by these self-accusing and self-extolling varia- 
tions from his letter as it had been originally written, excited in 
my mill J a sentiment too much cheered with merriment, and too much 
mitigated by compassion, for anger to have in it any part. But when, 
in place of a paragraph in the original letter, expressly declaring 
that he had believed with the majority that the propositions relat- 
ing to the navigation of the Mississippi and (o the hsheries "■ violated 
in no ri.Hi.ij our instructions,''^ I found foisted into the duplicate a pa- 
ragraph, accusing the majority not only of the violation of their 
instructions, but of a wilful and wanton violation of them, as un- 
derstood by thems-elves ; and to support this interpolated charge, a 
cancelled paragraph of instructions solemnly cited, of which he 
had, within two months, obtained from the archives of the Depart- 
ment two successive copies — let me candidly confess that the senti- 
ment uppermost in my mind was indignation, Mr. Russell com- 
ments u|>on the intinnities of my temper, and says, that when 
afterwards 1 pointed out to him, face to face, these palterings of 
his own hand-writing, and gave him proof, from the records of the 
Department, tiiat the instructions cited by him in support of his 
charge against his colleagues, had been cancelled at the time to 
which the charge applied, I was not in a humour to listen to him 
even with civility. This I deny. I did listen to him with civility. 
The reason that he assigned to me for the variance between his ori- 
ginal and his duplicate was, that the whole of the original draft, 
ibr which he had sent to Mendon, had not been found, and that he 
had been ou'iged to make up the two last leaves from memory. 
IIq said, too, t!iat there was no material variation o^' facts, as re- 
presented in the two papers. He said, as he says in the Boston 
Statesman, that he had felt himself at liberty to alter the paper to 
make his case better for the public eye. He said he had never 
written against me anonymously in the newspapers, and intimated 
that, in the year IIJIG, when I was in Europe, there had appeared 
in the Boston Ceutinel a paragraph, charging him with having 
been willing, at Ghent, to give up the fisheries — a thing of which I 
had never before heard. He assured me that, in bringing his letter 
before the public, his motive had not been to combine with my 
enemies to ruin my reputation. To all this I did listen with per- 
fect civility and composure ; and the last words with which I parted 
from him, however painful to him and myself, were not wanting in 
civility. They are clearly impressed upon my memory, and I 
trust they are upon his. He is at liberty to publish them if he 
thinks tit, as they were spoken. I should not have alluded to them 
here but for his charge of incivility, which is as groundless as all 
the other charges of which he has been the willing bearer against 
me. 



U9 

But Mr. Russell did not say, that he had understood the applica- 
tioD from Mr. Brent to him, to know whether he could furnish the 
duplicate of the letter called for by the House, had been naade 
with my privity, or by my authority. He did not say that it had not 
been his intention to deliver it as a duplicate. He did not say that 
he had purposely dated it "Paris, 11th February, 1822," to give 
notice that it was not the letter written by him in 1815, called for 
by the resolution of the House. He did not say that it was at my 
option whether to communicate it to the House or not, nor did he 
insinuate that the alteration at the Department of the date from 
1822, tirst to 1816, and then to 1815, had been made without his 
approbation or consent. To all this he knew the refutation was 
too near at hand to admit of its being said at that time and place. 
As to his giving explanations to me, what explanation could he 
give ? What explanation has he given to the public ? The call of 
the House was for a specifical paper written by him — he had fur- 
nished a paper as a duplicate of it, in his own hand-writing. It 
had been detected as a paper, so much the same, and yet so differ- 
ent, that it was susceptible of no explanation consistent with fair 
dealing: and the expedients to which ,\lr. Russell is reduced, ia 
attempting to account for it now, afford the most unanswerable 
proof, that he has for it no honest explanation to give. He despe- 
rately seeks an apology for it, by imputing to me a design to entrap 
him, by the alteration of the date of his duplicate, from 1822 to 
1816, and then to 181i5, made at the Department. These alterations 
were made like the application of Mr. Brent to Mr. Russell, for 
the duplicate mithout my knoudedge. and happened thus. 

After comparing the two papers together, I gave the duplicate 
to Mr. Bailey, tor a copy of it to be made, to be reported to the 
President, for communication to the House. Mr Bailey gave it to 
be copied to Mr. Thomas Thruston, a Clerk in the Department, 
a young man of a fair and honourable mind. Perceiving the date 
of the letter to be " Paris, 1 1 February, 1822," and knowing that 
Mr. Russell had been through the whole of that month attending 
Congress in this city ; not suspecting for a moment that this date 
had been designedly assumed by Mr. Russell, he consulted Mr. 
Brent, who, concluding with him that the date of the year was an 
inadvertency, authorized him to rectify it in the copy. Mr. Thrus- 
ton thought that he might extend that kindness to Mr. Russell fur- 
ther, by making the same change in the paper itself. He passed 
his pen therefore through the figures 1822, and wrote over them 
1816, thinking that was the year in which the letter was written. 
This change was not only made without my knowledge ; but when 
made known to me was disapproved by me. Mr. Brent supposed 
that all would be set right by making known the alteration to Mr. 
Russell himself, and obtaining his consent to the rectification of the 
date of the year. He did so ; and Mr. Russell not only approved 
of the change, but brought his original draft to the Department, 
and showed the date of it to Mr. Brent, to confirm the second cor- 
rection. I only ask, how intense must be the pressure of that con- 
IP 



150 

?ciousnes3, which attempts to palHate the variations in Mr. Rus- 
sell'? (wo iKipers, by representing incidents like these, as crafty 
wiles oT mine to ensnare his innocence ? 

Mr. Russell complains that, after the original of his letter had 
been found, the duplicate should have been communicated to the 
House at all. He complains that I should have presumed to make 
remarks upon both of them. He complains that I went to the 
House of Representatives on the Cth of May, and there in person 
sought fov a member who would consent to make the call which 
was necessary for the offi^cial publication of my personal remarks. 
As usual, part of these stateir^ents is true, and part is not — ^my call 
at the Houseof Representatives on the 6th of May, was accidental j 
beins; on my return from witnessing the experiment of Commodore 
JRodgers's noble invention at the Navy-Yard. I did not there seek 
for a member who would consent to make the call. I never asked 
anij member to make the call ; though I told several members who 
spoke to me on the subject there, and elsewhere, that it was my 
7vish the documents should be communicated to the House. The 
President's message to the House of the 4th of May, which Mr. 
Russell had seen before he left the city, had informed the House 
of my desire that the letter should be communicated, together with 
a communication from me respecting it. 

The truth is, that my desii-e for the communication of Mr. Rus- 
sell's letter to the Hou?e had commenced on the same day that his 
own had ceased. Mr. Russell, from the 26th of January to the 
22(1 of April, had been indefatigable in his exertions to bring this 
letter before Congress and the public. He had procured the ori- 
ginal draught of it from Mendon ; he had procured the call for it 
from the House ; he had endured the toil of re-writing, with his 
own hand, at least once, a letter of seven folio sheets of paper ; 
he had brought, and delivered it with his own hand, at the Depart- 
ment. At the moment of fruition his appetite fails him. Doubts 
of consequences to himself, as well as to others, seem to tiash across 
his mind. He leaves the paper — For what? For communication 
to the House, in answer to their call ? No ! " To put it in the 
power of the verson xcho might consider idmself the most liable to be 
offectcdby its publication'''' — for the "previous examination and 
consent of the adverse party." He seems to invite objection to 
its being communicated. He is quite indifferent whether it be 
communicated or not, and, it not communicated, he desires that it 
may be returned to him. But to make its terrors irresistible, he 
has double and treble charged it with crimination of violated in- 
structions ; and to vouch his charges, has twice armed himself 
with official copies from the Department, of the cancelled part of 
the instructions of 13th April, 1813. 

I had never wished for the communication to the House or to the 
public of the letter, until I had seen it. The etiect of its perusal 
upon my mind was certainly different from what Mr. Russell ap- 
peals to have auticipated. 1 saw at once what it was and what it 



131 

meant. I also saw, in a great measure, what its writer was, wliicli 
I Uiid never .^een before, and the di&covery of tlie orii;,inal letter, 
two flays after, disclosed him to me in afl his glory. In the private 
relations bettveen us, I remembered what he had been to me, and 
what I had been to him, for more than twelve years before, until, 
and inchuiiug that very morning 1 saw that he was now lo be, in 
substance and in intent, my accuser, and that of the colleagues with 
whom I had acted, before the Flouse, of which ho was a member, 
aud bei'ore the nation. In the original he had bren a secret ac- 
cuser, under the mask of self-vindication. In the duj>Iicaie he hacj 
laid aside the mask, though not the professions of unfeigned re- 
spect ; and to all the secret discolourings of the conduct and opi- 
nions of his colleagues, had added the new and direct charge of a 
wanton and wilful violation of tiieir in.*tructionsf, as understood by 
themselves. To have shrunk from these charges ivould, in my es- 
timation, have been equivalent to an admission of their truth. To 
have suppressed them, after the prying curiosity, which bad long 
been stimulated, to see this mysterious and fearful letter, vvoulii 
lave been impossible. No honourable course was left me but that 
of meeting the adverse party on the scene which he himself had 
selected for his operations ; and I knew that little more would be 
necessary for my own vindication, and that of my colleagues, in the 
minds of all impartial men, than from the materials furnished by 
Mr. Piussell himself, to expose to the House at once the character 
of the accusation and of the accuser. I did, therefore, desire that 
both the letters of Mr. Russell, and my remarks upon them, should 
he communicated to the House ; but even then, if Mr. Russell, in- 
^jtead of affecting inditlerence, had fairly acknowledged his error, 
and requestvid that the papers miglit not be communicated, I would 
have joined him in that request to the President. 

Both the letters were co.mmunicated to the House ; both were 
strictly within the call of their resolutiou, which was for " any 
letter which may haye been received horn Jonathan Russell, in con- 
formity with the indications contained in his letter of the 25th De- 
cember, 1814." I remarked upon both; and if that has proved 
a mortitication to Mr Russell, he should recollect that he brought 
it u|.on himself It was his fault there was any difference between 
them to remark upon. He should also remember, that if the ori- 
ginal alone had been communicated, he would have been deprived 
of the beneht of " those corrections of the copy in possession, which 
appeared to Jiiia proper to exhibit his case most advantageously be- 
fore the tribunal of the public.''' 

Mr. Russell is inistaken in supposing that I attach any importance 
to his protest, as adding authentication to his professions, or prov- 
ing his sincerity. What difference can there be between the word 
of a man, with or without protest, who, after writing the word du- 
plicate upon a letter written and signed by himself, to be communi- 
cated as a public document to a legislative body, tells the public 
^hat he gave no further intimations much less an assurance, that it 



152 

was so, and avows that it a-ws not so ? If the name of Gotl, under 
Mr. Russell's pen, could not deter him from converting the past 
into the future, that he might enjoy the honours of proj^hecy, and 
couple with his trust in the Deily, his conhdence in the valour of 
the West, what excuse could I have for considering the declaration 
of Mr. Russell as either more or less sincere for being backed by 
his protest ? 

" To add a perfume to the violet 

" Is wasteful and ridiculous excess." 

But if Mr. Russell, after delivering on the 22d of April his du- 
plicate at the Department of State, and especially after he knew 
that the orignal had been found, was no longer solicitous that either 
of them should be communicated to the House, he had neither 
given up the inclination, nor the intention of appearing before the 
public, as the accuser of his colleagues of the majority at Ghent. 

He left the City of Washington on the 5th of May, the day after 
the House of Representatives had received the President's answer 
to the call of the 19th of April — with that answer the President 
comnjunicated to the House my report to him, which had been 
accompanied by a copy of the duplicate left by Mr. Russell at the 
Department for communication. But the President did not com- 
municate the copy of the duplicate itself He informed the House 
that the original had also been found — that it had been marked ag 
'd private letter, by the writer himself — that it disclosed differences 
of opinion which would naturally call for answers from those im- 
plicated by it ; and that I, as one of them, had already requested 
that it might be communicated, together with my remarks upon it. 
Under those circumstances the President declined communicating 
the letter called for, unless the House, upon a knowledge of them, 
should desire it — in which case he informed them that it would be 
communicated, together with my report upon it. 

All this was known to Mr. Russell when he left the city ; and it 
is presumed that he also knew that the call for the letter would not 
be renewed by the mover of the resolution of the 19th of April ; 
yet Ml', Russell went to Philadelphia, and there caused to be print- 
ed in the National Gazette of the 10th of May, another variety of 
his letter of Uth February, 1815, from Paris, to Mr. Monroe — 
still difi'ering from the original — differing also from the duplicate, 
which he had delivered at the Department, but satisfactorily prov- 
ing with what ingenuity he had told me that the two last leaves of 
his original draft had not been found at Mendon, and that he had 
been obliged to su|)ply their contents in the duplicate from memo- 
ry — the triplicate of the National Gazetle was accompanied by an 
editorial article, vouching for its authenticity as a copy — -vouching 
from good aitthority that Mr. Russell had had no share in the call 
(of the House of the 19th of April) for the private letter — and 
commenting in a style, the apologetical character of which indicates 
its origin, upon the privacy, which it urged was not secrecy, of the 
letter ; upon the professions of Mr. Russell's respect for his col- 



153 

leagues in the letter, and upon the frequency of such personal and 
separate explanations in the annals of diplomacy — all this, upon the 
face of it, came directly or indirectly irom Mr. Russell himself. 
The letter, as puhlished in the National Gazette, was not marked 
private, as the original had been, which was now known from the 
President's message. It had discarded the panegyric upon the dis- 
franchised tishermen — the self-eulogium for enlarged patriotism 
and subdued predilections and prepossessions — the prophetic in- 
spirations, and the trust in God and in the valour of the West, 
which were in the duplicate and not in the original. It had stripped 
off all the cumulative epithets added in the duplicate to the charge 
of a wilt'ul viohition of instructions — it had even dismissed the 
charge of having violated their instructions relating to the Missis- 
sippi, as construed by themselves, and the emphatic citation of the 
explicit and implicit cancelled instructions of 15th April, 1813. 
But it had retained the interpolation of " zc'c directly violated our 
instructions,^'' and the substitution of " we could" for " 1 can," in 
that lummous exposition of atmospheric humidities and incessant 
iogs which had been discovered to have so nearly annulled the 
vaiue of the Labrador fishery ; and although the cancelled instruc- 
tions were no longer cited in the text of the letter, yet to support 
the remnant of interpolated charge, that they had been violated, 
they were expressly subjoined as an appendage to the publication, 
with an abundance of italicised words to point out the heinousness 
of this violation ; and this was after the interview in whic'i I had 
shown to Mr. Russell at the Department, the record, not only of 
the letter of 4th October, 1814, to the Commissioners, which had 
not, but that of the letter of the 19th October, 1814, which had been 
received before the proposal, upon which the cliarge of violation 
rested, had been made to the Rrilish plenipotentiaries. The tri- 
plicate of the National Gazette had restored tiie postscript of the 
original, which had been dismissed from the duplicate, containing 
the three hopeful otheu ways of proceeding devised by Mr. Rus- 
sell's resources of negotiation, two months after the negotiation was 
over, instead of the course which we did pursue, the word other 
only being omitted. The triplicate of the National Gazette, in 
short, proved that the original draft from Mendon had been com- 
plete ; and that all its own interpolations, as well as those of the 
duplicate, and its omissions, had been owing, not to deficiencies of 
memory, but to superfluities of invention. 

Such is the true history of the tactics of Mr. Russell, in bringing 
before the House of Representatives and the nation, his impeach- 
ment of his colleagues, the majority of the Ghent mission — that it 
was such of me, is fully admitted by himself in the Boston States- 
man, by styling me the adverse party, and in that publication he 
sufficiently indicates his disposition in the progress of his operations 
to concentrate his charges against me alone. Be it so. In my re- 
marks upon the original and duplicate of his accusatory letter, 1 
styled it a laborious tissue of misrepresentation^^. Ho complains of 



i54 

this as of virulence and acriinnnij, which he boasts of not having re- 
turned. If virulence and aciimony had no other vehicle than har^h 
language, if they could be disguised under prof(!Ssions of unfeigned 
respect, however cautiously Mr. Russell had abstained from them 
in his original letter from Paris, he had been much less observant of 
that decorum in the duplicate, prepared with new relishes of crimi- 
nation to suit the appetite of political hatred ; and the publication in 
the Boston Statesman is by no means sparing either of virulence or 
acrimony against me. The whole tenour of his argument in the 
original letter, against his colleagues, was sneering and sarcastic. 
In the Boston Statesman, besides direct charges against me, of disin- 
gennousness. of having made an unprincipled and unprovoked attack 
upon him, of disrespect to the House of Representatives, of inlirni- 
ities of temper and taste, and of being a dreaming visionary, he tries- 
even the temper of his wit to assail me, and by a heavy joke upon 
an expression used in my remarks, indulges his own instinct of mis- 
quoting my words to make them appear ridiculous. If this be Mr. 
RusselTs niildiitss and moderation, it looks very much like the viru- 
lence and acrimony of others. In the transactions of human socie- 
ty, there are deeds of which no adequate idea can be conveyed in 
the terms of courtesy and urbanity ; yet I admit the obligation of a 
public man to meet with coolness and self-command the vilest arti- 
fices, even of fraud and tnaiignity, to rob him of the most precious 
of human possessions, his good name — ''thrice happy they who 
master so tlieir blood." If in my former remarks upon Mr. Rus- 
sell's Janus-f iced letier, or in this refutation of his new and direct 
personal attack upon my reputation, I have, even in word, trans- 
gressed the rule of decency, which, under every provocation, it is- 
still the duty of my station and of my character to observe, though, 
unconscious, myself, of the offence, I submit to the impartial judg- 
ment of others, and throw myself upon the candour of my country 
for its forgiveness. This paper has been confined to a demonstra- 
tion of the frailty or the pliability of Mr. Russell's memory, in rela- 
tion to flicts altogether recent. As, upon an issue of facts, I do not 
even now ask that my word alone should pass for conclusive, state- 
ments of Mr. Brent and Mr. Bailey, relative to the production of 
Mr. Russell's letter before the House of Representatives, and to 
the incidents from which Mr. "Russell has attempted to extort a 
charge of disingenuousness against me, are subjoined. My only 
wish is, that they should be attentively compared with Mr. Rus- 
gell's narrative. 

In another paper I shall prove that Mr. Russell's reminiscences 
of the proceedings at Ghent, bear the same character of imagina- 
tion substituted for memory ; and that what he calls " the real his- 
tory of the transaction," [the fishery and Mississippi navigation pro- 
posal,] contradictory to the statement which I had made in my re- 
marks, is utterly destitute of foundation. 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

Washington, 13th July, 1822. 



155 



Mr. Brenfs Statements 

Oa the 20th of April of the present year, I called upon Mr. Rtissell at hig 
lodgings in this cily, without the knowledge or direction of any other persoa 
■whatever, to inquire of him, as I did, whether he could and wouhl furnish the 
Department of Slate with a copy of his letter from Paris to the Sccret.iry of 
State, whirl) was referred to in a resolution that I supposed to be then on its 
patisage (but which had actually passed the day before,) through the House of 
Representatives, upon the motion of Doctor Floyd, in case the said resolution 
should be adopted by the House, and a regular application were made to him 
for it ; observing to him distinctly and particularly, however, that I had no au- 
tiiority to make such an application myself, and that my entire object was to 
ascertain the facts just stated. In answer to this inquiry, Mr. Russell informed 
me thai liis daughter had recently transmitted to him the draft of the letter in 
(juestion ; that he had it thereby in his power to give a transcript of it, and would 
sat about making one immediately, which, when finished, he would deliver to 
the President. Upon which I remarked, that tliis seemed to be the proper 
Course, tile original having been addressed to him, the President, when Secreta- 
ry of State. I then observed to Mr. Russell, that he iiad better deliver it as a 
duplicate than as a copy ; that he knew the oiiginal was not to be found upon the 
iiles i;f the Department of State, and that this was the connnon fonn v.itli regard 
to all such communications. He seemed pleased with the suggestion, and said 
that he would conform to it, \»'ithout giving me the slightest intimation that he 
would prt ler giving a copy, as such, or that he would furnish any other th^i a 
duplicate ot the identical letter spoken of and referred to, which had been 
transmitted by him from Paris to the then Secretary of State. I was prompted 
b}- a double njotive to this inquir}^ — first, by an habitual wish that the Depart- 
ment to which I belonged should always be prepared to lurnish what might be 
required of it by the House of Representatives ; and, secondly, by an appre- 
hension that, if it were not so prepared in this particular case, unjust imouta- 
tions might be made against the Head of that Department, which I was desir- 
ous of obviating. In this interview, Mr. Russell told me that it was at his in- 
stance Doctor Floyd had submitted his last resolution to the House of Repre- 
sentatives ; that lie was influenced, himself, by the wish that his letter should be 
communicated to Congress, for his justification as to the part he had taken in 
the negotiation of the treaty of Ghent, vi'ith regard to the fisiieries ; but that the 
same gentleman's first motion upon the same subject, was made without his 
knowledge, or advice. On the 22d of the same month, Mr. Russell handed to 
me, ill my r< om at the Department of State, in the absence of the Secretary, 
with a request that I would deliver it over to him, an open letter, marked "Du- 
plicate," a copy of which was communicated by the President to the House of 
Representatives, on the 7th of May last ; observing, when he did so, that he felt 
no particular solicitude about it, and requesting that it might be returned to 
bini, if not used by the Department. A day or two afterwards this paper was 
put into the hands of Mr. Thomas Thruston, one of the clerks of the office, 
to be copied, .perceiving that it bore date at Paris, on the Ilth of February, 
1822, when Mr. Russell was known to be attending the session of Congress in 
this citjs as a member of the House of Representatives, this young gentleman 
asked my advice whether he should insert that date in the copy or not ; and I 
told him, without hesitation, to insert 1816 instead of 1822, as Mr. Russell had 
evidently, from inadvertence, made a mistake in the date. Mr. Thruston gave 
it that date accord. ngly, and made a correspondent alteration in the paper it- 
self, which he was transcribing, under the impression that he was likewise au- 
thorized to do so, and that it would never produce criticism of any sort. When 
Mr. Adams came to be apprized of these circumstances, particularly of the al- 
teration in the date of the " duplicate" paper, he manifested and expressed 
much surprise and displeasure upon the occasion. But Mr. Russell, whom I 
saw immediately after they happened, and to whom I communicated what had 



Ij6 

been done, e.spiessed bis full arnl entire approbation ol it ; and the next day he 
brougiit to tlie office the drauglit (Vom which he stated the " duplicate'" was pre- 
pared by him, bcnring date Paris, llth February, 1815, which he particularly 
showed to me, as a corroborati\e justification to the Department of State for 
the alteration that had been made in the date of his paper. It was then, I 
thiidi, that I informed him of tiio substitution which had been made in the ofiice 
copy o( the year 1815 for that of 1816, to correct our own mistake ; and he au- 
thorized and requested me to liave a like alteration made in his " duplicate,'' 
which was accordingly done. Mr. Russell, upon this occasion, again expressed 
his indifference as to the determination of tlie Executive with regard to this 
** duplicate,'' and repeated his request that it should be returned to him if not 
used. 

In one of our conversations I asked him why he had delivered that paper to 
me, and not to the President, to whom he had said he would deliver it.'' His 
reply was, that he had done so because he deemed that course most respectful 
to the Department of State, being under the impression, notwithstanding my de- 
claration to tlie contrary, that I had sounded him upon the subject of the paper 
in question by authority, (meaning, I presumed, by direction of the Secretary 
of State,) and that it was actually required at the Department of State. 

In a conversation between Mr. Russell and myself, on the 1st May, in Mr. 
Bailey's room, at the Department of State, in the presence and hearing of that 
gentleman, he fully and expressly admitted and confirmed the correctness of the 
statement given in this paper of the conversation between us of the 20th of 
April, at his lodgings, with regard to the facts that the call of Doctor Floyd for 
hii*letter had been made at his suggestiim, and that I mentioned to him I had 
no authority to make an application to him for a copy of that letter, and that I 
made none. 

DANIEL BRENT. 

Washington, \Oih July, 1822. 



Mr. Bailey^s Statement. 

Several days after the passage of the resolution of the House of Represent- 
atives of the United States, of 17th January, 1822, moved by Mr. Floyd, and 
calling on the President for copies of certain papers relative to the negotiations 
at Ghent, but before the copies had been communicated to the House, Mr. Rus- 
sell, of the House, called at my room in the Department of State, and expressed 
a wish to see a letter addressed by himself, separately, at Ghent, to the then Se- 
cretary of State. He stated that the present Secretary of State had mentioned the 
letter tohim, and had desired to know whether it was his (Mr. Russell's) wish 
that this letter should be communicated to the House with other papers embraced 
by the above call, or not. This letter, (a short one, dated "Ghent, 25th De- 
cember, ISl*,") was accordingly shown to Mr. Russell by me, in a volume con- 
taining the original communications from our Plenipotentiaries at Ghent, wdiich 
had been bound and lettered in the Department several years before. Mr. Rus- 
sell, on reading the letter, said that he saw no objection to the"§olinmunication 
of it, and asked me if I saw an}-. The reply was, that none was seen. He 
said that the concluding paragraph, as it related to his return to Sweden, and 
not at all to the negotiations at Ghent, did not require to be communicated to 
the House. I requested him to mark such part as he wished communicated. 
This he did; and, conformably to this, the copy was made, by subsequent di- 
rection of the Secretary of State, and thus it appears in the printed copy, p. 50. 

At the same time, or very soon after, (I do not remember which,) Air. Rus- 
sell expressed a wish that the letter might be found and communicated, which, 
in his letter of 25th December, 1814, he intimated his intention of writing. 
The wish was repeated at subsequent times, both at my room and elsewhere ; 
and much desire was manifested by him on the subject, Mr. Russell and my- 
eclf together, as well as myself separately, examined at different times the 



157 

bound volume above-named, and also other files, oo which, if mislaid, the let- 
ter would most probably have been placed ; but no trace of it was found. At 
his suggestion I made inquiry of the Secretary and of the Chief Clerk ; but 
they had no icnowleclge of such letter. The Secretary informed me that his firsl 
knowledge that such a letter had been written, was from Mr. Russell's declar- 
ation to him since the call of 17th January ; and that the existence even of Mr. 
Russell's letter of 25th December, 1814, was unknown to him previous to his 
examination of the files in consequence of said call. 

Mr. Russell, while making the above inquiries for his letter of the lllh Feb- 
ruary, 1815, remarked to me, that he had not a copy of it here, but had at 
home, (in Massachusetts,) and that he could get a copy by writing to his 
daughter, there ; but supposed that would be too late for a conipliance with the 
(first) call. He asked me if I supposed a copy, so made out, would be received 
and communicated to the House with the other papers. I replied that I did 
not know sufficiently what was usual on such occasions. After he had delivered 
the " duplicate" at the Department, he told me that he had written to his 
daughter for the copy, and that she had sent it. 

While Mr. Russell, at his first visit, was examining various records of tiie 
office, he noticed a paragraph in the instructions to the Commissioners of peace 
of 15th April, 1813, respecting British traders within our limits ; a paragraph 
which was omitted in the copy sent to Congress by Mr. Madison with his mes- 
sage of 13th October, 1814, (see Wait's State Papers, vol. 9, p. 357,) and 
which, it is believed, was never published till it appeared in the National Ga- 
zette of lOth May, 1822. Of this Mr. Russell requested of me a copy. On 
direction of the Secretary, I made and sent to him the copy ; and, several 
weeks after, (I think early in April,) on liis remarking to me that that copy was 
mislaid or not found, and asking another copy, a second was made and sent tp 
him. 

Soon after the call of 19th April, Mr. Russell vi-as at my room, and said 
(wholly spontaneously) that Mr. Floyd had made his motion for that call eni- 
/jre/_y without his knowledge, or without consulting with him, or words to that 
effect. He also said he did not know Mr. Floyd's motive for making his first 
motion (for the call of I7th January.) 

On receiving the duplicate, tlie Secretary of State gave it to me to be copied; 
for which purpose it was handed to Mr. Thruston. The date having been al- 
tered from 1822 to 1816, as stated by Mr. Brent, the Secretary, ou seeing the. 
alteration, expressed distinctly his displeasure at the circumstance. When Mr. 
Russell next came to the Department, Mr. Brent, in my presence, mentioned to 
him the incident of the alteration from 1822 to 1316 ; and (such is strongly my 
impression, scarcely leaving a doubt, though Mr. Brent is uncertain whether 
this intimation happened at this or the next visit of Mr. Russell,) intimated 
that l3l6 was put by mistake for 181.'), and that I8l5 would be the reading of 
the copy for the House, if such was Mr. Russell's pleasure. Mr. Russell not 
only assented to the alteration, (to 1815,) but requested tliat it might be read 
thus, in a manner more emphatic and formal than an ordinary request ; pur- 
porting, that he wished this declaration of his to be taken as authority for the 
alteration. And, at his next call, he brought with him the draught from which 
he made the duplicate, and, after exhibiting its date to Mr. Brent, in his room, 
brought it to me, to slrow that " 1822" was a mistake in copying. The draught 
was plainly "I8l5." 

When the copy was made for the House, the Secretary was anxious that it 
should confoim with scrupulous exactness to the paper deposited by Mr. Rus- 
sel, with the sole exception of the date, which he wished modified according to 
Mr. Russelfs special request. 

On the 1st of May, Mr. Russell and Mr. Brent were in my room and Mr. 

Brent recapitulated the conversation between himself and Mr. Russell, on the 

20th April, when Mr. Brent made certain inquiries respecting Mr. Russell's 

•tter. The rccapitnlation in substance stated, that Mr. Brent infcirnied Mr. 

20 



158 

RusSell, that his inquiries v/erc wholly without the authority of any other per- 
son ; that his object was to know whether Mr. Russell could and would furnish 
the letter, if it should be wanted, and if he should be applied to for it ; and 
ihat Mr. Russell told Mr. Brent that he could and would furnisli it to the Pre- 
sident ; and that he further told Mr. Brent, (on Mr. Brent's inquiry,) that Mr. 
Floyd had made his (second) motion on his (Mr. Russell's) suggestion. Mr. 
Russell assented to the correctness of this recapitulation, explaining the last ob- 
servation by saying, that Mr. Floyd, before he moved the second call, asked 
him if he could give him (Mr. Floyd) a copy of the letter, and that he (Mr. 
Russell) declined, and told Mr. Floyd that if he wished a copy he must move a 
call for it. 

JOHN BAILEY. 
Washington, lOlh July, 1822. 



Fioiix the National Intdligencer of August 7, 1822. 
TO THE EDITORS. , 

In the reply printed in the National Intelligencer of the 17th 
ultimo, to a publication by Mr. Jonathan Russell in the Boston 
Statesman, of the 27th of June preceding, it was stated that the 
subject would be resumed in anothev papei-. That paper, with 
others elucidating all the topics of general interest discussed in Mr- 
Russell's letter, has been prepared, but will be presented to the 
public in another form. Mr. Russell's letter from Paris, of 1 Ith 
February, 1815, was ostensibly a vindication of himself and his mo- 
tives against an accusation instituted by himself — self-defence 
against self-impeachment ! The substance was, a secret impeach- 
ment of the majority of his colleagues before their common supe- 
rior authority. That accusation he saw fit, during the late session 
of Congress, to bring before the Legislative Assembly of which he 
was a member, and shortly afterwards to produce before the pub- 
lic, in newspapers, at Philadelphia and at Boston. If, in meeting 
this accusation wherever it has appeared visible and tangible, I have 
been compelled to present myself more than once to the }!ublic at- 
tention, it has been under circumstances deeply mortifying to me, 
and assuredly not of my own choosing. I have been called to re- 
pel a succession of charges, supported by the name of a man high 
in the confidence of the country ; an associate in the trust which 
he substantially accuses me of having betrayed, and implicating the 
character, conduct, and memory of other citizens employed on the 
same service. It has, indeed, recently been suggested that this is 
a mere personal controversy between Mr. Russell and me, with 
which the public have no concern. And why was it brought before 
the public ? So long as the purport of Mr. Russell's letter was 
merely propagated in whispers — just hinted in anonymous para- 
graphs of newspapers, and hoped not to be true in charitable letters 
from Washington, however infamons the imputations with which it 
was occasionally bound up and circulated, a man conscious of his 
innocence, and secure in the uprightness of his intentions, might 



159 

overlook and despiso, it. But, when made the object of two suc- 
cessive legislative calls for obsolete and forgotten documents, trum- 
peted beforehand throughout the Union, as fraught with disclo- 
sures which were to blast a reputation worthless in the estimation 
of its possessor, if not unsullied ; when pertinaciously obtruded 
upon Congress and upon the nation, by a colleague in the transac- 
tion denounced, by a participator in the act reprobated by himself, 
principles and duties of a higher o/der than those of mere personal 
delicacy commanded me to solicit the attention, first, of the House 
of Representatives, and, secondly, of the nation, to my defence and 
that of my colleagues, arraigned before them. That defence has 
been, and will be, strictly confined to the same limits as the attack 
to which it is opposed ; and \i\ in the course of it, the attack itself 
has necessarily been made to recoil upon the accuser, it was because 
nothing could more forcibly tend to show the futility of the charges 
than an exposition of the conduct of him who produced them. Let 
me then be permitted to say, that this is not a mere personal con- 
troversy between Mr. Russell and me, with which the public have 
no concern. It did not so begin, nor can it so end. The negotia- 
tion at Ghent was an event of great importance in the history of 
this Union. It was conducted by five Commissioners, citizens of 
different sections of the country. One of the great objections to 
the entrusting of critical negotiations to Commissions is, their in- 
herent tendency to internal dissentions, injurious to the common 
cause. Of these dissentions I believe there were as few at Ghent 
as in any negotiation, by Commissioners of equal number, upon his- 
torical record. Until the last winter, 1 had flattered myself that 
?io7ie of those differences of opinion had been of a character which 
it would have been ever necessary to disclose to the world. In 
making the draught of the joint letter of 25th December, 1814, to 
the Secretary of State, I had, in speaking of the proposition made to 
the British plenipotentiaries on the first of that month, said, '• To 
place both points beyond controversy, v^e offered to admit an article 
confirming both righls," (to the Mississippi navigation and the' fish- 
eries) The draught having been passed round to all the members of 
the mission for revisal, was brought back to me by Mr. Russell, 
with an alteration, whicli he said was desired, not by him, but by 
Rlr. Clay, to say, instead of "tee nff'cred,'" "a majority of us de- 
termined to offer." Now, although the expressions first used had 
been strictly correct, and the offer bad been actually made by the 
whole mission, I readily assented to the alteration, not imagining 
that Mr. Russell's purpose was to lay it as acornei -stone for future 
fabrics, either of self-accusation and defence, or of social discord 
and reproach. He now alleges it as a self-contradiction of mine, 
that I say the proposition was made by the whole mission, although 
in the joint letter of 25th December, it was said, a majority deter- 
mined to offer it. But the contradiction is of his own imagination. 
The determination was taken by the majority. The olTer was made 
by the whole. Mr. Russell proposed another amendment, for which 



160 

he neither tnentioned, nor did I then sugpect his motive. Tlie hot- 
ter says, *' We contended that the wliole treaty of 1783 must be 
considered as one entire and permanent compact, not Habit, like 
ordinary treaties, to be abrogated by a subsequent war between the 
parties to it." Mr. Russell's proposal was to change the word 
must for might — to read " we contended that the whole treaty 
might be considered," &c. But to this alteration 1 objected that it 
would not state the facts as they were — that we had actually con- 
tended that it must, and not that it might be so considered ; and Mr. 
Russell immediately yielded to this objection, which he could not 
dispute. He assented to this passage of the letter, as it was first 
written, and as it now stands. The use which he even then pro- 
posed to make of the alteration, if it had been admitted, I now per- 
ceive, but had then too sincere a regard for Mr. Russell to surmise. 
There were, in the course of the negotiation, many differences 
of opinion, and many votes taken ; but, excepting this solitary case, 
no one member of the mission thought it necessary to record the 
fact, or to make it known even to the American government. As 
all the members of the mission had finally concurred in the pro- 
position upon which the vote was taken, and had signed their names 
to it in the communications to the British plenipotentiaries ; and as 
there was then no allegation by any one that it was not fully war- 
ranted by our instruction?, 1 certainly thought there was as little 
■necessity for announcing to our government that a vote had been 
taken upon this proposition, as upon any other question which had 
occurred — yet, when it was desired by any member of the mission, 
that the ]>roposition to which all had pledged their names and sig- 
natures to the adverse party and the world, should be recorded, as 
having been previously determined by a majority only, I could 
have no objection to its being so stated. Mr. Clay did not think it 
necessary either to accuse or to defend himself for having been in 
the minority. The course pursued by Mr. Russell was neither 
candid towards his colleagues, nor friendly to the liberties of his 
country. Under the guise of accusing himself, he became the se- 
cret delator of his colleagues. But his letter from Paris was not 
Contkied to its professed object of vindicating himself for his vote 
upon the Mississippi proposition. He travelled out of the record, 
and racked his ingenuity and his learning to refute the principle 
assumed at the proposal of Mr. Clay himself — the principle upon 
which no vote had been taken in the mission ; but which had been 
adopted and inserted in (he note of 10th November, 1814, by una- 
nimous consent ; the principle that, from the nature of the fishing 
liberties, and the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, they 
were not abrogated by the war. And now, seven years afterwards, 
nhen, by the maintenance of that very principle, we had, in a sub 
j-equent negotiation with Great Britain, secured in a new compro- 
mise, without abandoning the principle, the whole essential interest 
(!i the fishing liberties ; when, by the same negotiation, we had ob- 
frf\nec! the abandonment by Great Britain' of her own ground ^f 



161 

claim to the navigation of the Mississippi, and when that negotiation 
had been conducted under instructions entirely drawn up by me ; 
a call from the House of Representatives comes for the residue of 
the Ghent documents. Mr. Russell, having it placed at his own op- 
tion whether his old denunciation of himself, and his disagreement 
with the majority, shall or shall not be communicated to the House, 
deliberately decides that it shall — and gives himself and others no 
repose, till he has brought before Congress and the nation, his bill 
of attainder against his colleagues, new vamped to suit the political 
passions of the day ; it is how too late to say that this is a mere 
personal controversy between Mr. Russell and me with which the 
public have no concern. 

The principle asserted in the letter from Paris, that zee were left 
without any title to the fishing liberty whatsoever^ was in the highest 
degree pernicious to one of the most important interests of this 
Union. The pretension that our only title to them had been a 
temporary grant of the British king, revokable at his pleasure, 
was equally unfounded in law and in fact. The reason assigned 
for the averment of its extinction — that war abrogates all treaties, 
and all articles of every treaty — is not warranted by the law of na- 
tions ; and if it were, would not warrant the conclusion drawn 
from it. The character and value of the proposition relating to 
the Mississippi, are in the letter from Paris totally misrepresented 
and perverted by exaggeration. The value of the fishing liberty 
is equally misrepresented and perverted by disparagement. The 
possession of this liberty has twice been the turning hinge upon 
which wars with Great Britain have been concluded. If upon ei- 
ther of those occasions the principles asserted in Mr. Russell's 
letter had prevailed with the American negotiators, our rights in 
the Newfoundland, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador fishery, 
would have been lost. The same question may very probably arise 
again. I undertake to prove that the argument, as Mr. Russell 
calls it, of his letter, is in all its parts as untenable as it was unpro- 
pitious to the cause of his country. 

I have no intention, however, of pursuing this controversy fur- 
ther in the newspapers. I propose to publish in one collection, 
the Ghent documents called for by the resolution of the House vi' 
Representatives ; the message of the President to the House, with 
Mr. Russell's letters and my remarks ; his publication of 27th June, 
in the Boston Statesman, and mine in answer thereto in the Na- 
tional Intelligencer, with other papers, rectifying other represen- 
tations of Mr. Russell : and discussing the effect of war upon 
treaties and treaty stipulations ; the value of the Mississippi navi- 
gation to the British, and of the fishing liberty to us and tlie rights 
by which we have held and still hold them. That there ever was 
any difference of opinion between the American plenipotentiaries 
at Ghent upon measures in which they all finally concurred, would 
never have been made known to the public by ?ne. Satisfied with 
an equal share of responsibility, for all which they had done, con- 



162 

tented anil grateful for the satisfaction of our common country with 
the general result of our services, I had no private interests or 
feelings to indulge, at the expense of others, and my earnest desire 
would have been, to have seen in every member of the mission, 
for the rest of my days, no other than a friend and a brother. Disap- 
pointed in this wish, my next hope is, that even the discords of Ghent 
may be turned to the promotion of future harmony in the Union. 
From the nature of our federative constitution, it is probable that 
hereafter, as heretofore, the most important negotiations with for- 
eign powers will be committed to joint missions of several mem- 
bers. To every such mission and to all its members the Ghent 
negotiation will afford instructive L-ssons, as well by its union as 
by its divisions. The conduct of Mr. Russell will afford a negative 
instruction of deep import. It will teach them to beware of leaguing 
invidious and imaginary sectional or party feelings with the pur- 
poses of the enemy, against our rights — of assuming th'e argument 
of the enemy .against ourselves — of proclaiming, without necessity, 
differences of opinion upon rejected propositions — of secret de- 
nunciations in the shape of self-vindication — of crude and shallow 
dissertations against essential interests and just claims, and of in- 
terpolating public papers to adapt them to the purposes of the mo- 
ment. It will teach them to have a higher sense of the rights and 
liberties of this nation, than to believe them to be held at the will 
of a British king; and it will warn them to turn their talents 
to better uses than that of sacrificing the essential interests of their 
country. These are public concerns of great moment, and a just 
imderstanding of them in every part of the Union is indissolubly 
connected with a just estimate of the conduct of the majority of 
the Ghent mission, held forth to public censure by one of their col- 
leagues. For a view of the wliole ground it will be indispensable 
to compare the documenis of the negotiation with the references of 
both parties to them in the discussion, and to that end it will be ne- 
cessary that they should all be included in one publication. I ask 
of the candour of my countrymen to be assured, that this publica- 
tion will be addressed to no temporary purposes, to no party feel- 
ing, to no sectional passions, but to the whole nation and to pos- 
terity, u[)on objects which, although implicating immediately only 
the conduct of the negotiators at Ghent, are of deep and perma 
nent interest to themselves. 

JOHN QUINCY .4 DAMS. 
August 5, 1822 



163 
FURTHER STRICTURES 

ON MR. RUSSELL'S REPRESENTATIONS AND ESTIMATES. 

/, Navigation of the Mississippi — Worthless to the British. 

In the joint despatch of the 25th of December, 1814, to the Se- 
cretary of State, signed by all the members of the American mis- 
sion at Ghent, a narrative was given of the circumstances, under 
which the proposal had been made to the British plenipotentiaries 
and rejected by them, of a stipulation, contirming the provisions of 
the treaty of 1783, in regard to the fishing rights and liberties of 
the people of the United States, and to the right of the British to 
navigate the Mississippi. It was there stated, that after the Ame- 
rican mission, in answer to the notification from the British that 
their government did not intend to grant anew the fishing liberties 
!iad asserted the principle, that from the peculiar character of the 
treaty of 1783, and the nature of those rights and liberties, no fur- 
tlier stipulation had been deemed necessary by the government of 
the United States, to entitle them to the full enjoyment of all of 
them ; after they had sent to the British plenipotentiaries, on the 
SOth of November, 1814, a project of a treaty, containing no arti- 
cle or stipulation on the subject ; after the British plenipotentiaries 
had, on the 2{Uh of November, returned that project with alterations 
proposed by them, one of which was a stipulation that British sub- 
jects should at all times, have access to the river Mississippi and 
the free navigation of the river — to meet this demand, and to place 
both points beyond all future controversy, a majority of the mission 
determined to offer to admit an article confirming both rights. 

Nothing can be more clear and explicit than this statement that 
the determination of the majority was taken after the 2Qth of No- 
, vcinbcr, 1814. Yet directly in the face of it, Mr. Russell, in the 
Boston Statesman of 27 June, affirms that at the mission meetings 
of the 28th and 29th of November, " whatever might have been 
" said in relation to the Mississippi, on account of the alteration 
" respecting it, made in the 8th article of our project, by the Bri- 
" tish plenipotentiaries, no new resolution was there taken by the 
'' American mission to rffer the navigation of that river for thefishina- 
"privilege. This offer was made on the 1st of December, in vir- 
" tue of the vote taken before the 10th of November, and which 
"although suspended, had not been reconsidered or cancelled." 
And he adds, " I am the more confident in this statement, as I dis- 
" tinctly remember that when that offer was actually made, it was 
" unexpected by a majority of the mission. Mr. Bayard, inre- 
" turning home Irom the house of the British ministers, where the 
'' conference of the 1st of December had been holden, very expJi- 
" citly declared to Mr. Clay and to me, his dissatisfaction that this 
'* offer had been made without his having been recently consulted in 
'' relation to it. I dare, in regard to these facts, to appeal to (ho 
" Fccallection of Mr. C\ny. in confirmation ofmv own."' 



164 

Marvellous indeed ! So then this wonder-working and terrible 
proposal, this portentous sacrifice of the peace, comfort, and safety 
of the western world, was actually made in full conference with 
the British plenipotentiaries, not by a majority, but by a mikority, 
of the American mission. And Mr. Bayard, who had changed hir 
mind, stood by, and saw the proposal m'ride, heard it discussed, 
saw it entered on the protocol as the proposal of the American 
plenipotentiaries, and alterwards signed a letter declaring he had 
no objection to it ; while all the time he was not for, but against it. 
And Mr. Clay and Mr. Russell, who from before the 10th of No- 
vember had known the change of Mr. Bayard's mind, they too, 
witnessed this insolent usurpation, by the minority, of the name 
and rights of the whole mission, without daring to avow an objec- 
tion to it either in the presence of, or in correspondence with, the 
British plenipotentiaries, or in the meetings of the mission itself. 
Mr. Bayard contents himself with whispering his dissatisfaction to 
Mr, Clay and Mr. Russell ; and they, instead of vindicating the in- 
sulted rights of the majority, reserve it as a secret, which Mr. Rus- 
sell, seven years after the death of Mr. Bayard, divulges to the 
world. 

The anecdote is an outrage on the memory of Mr. Bayard. Mr. 
Clay will not respond affirmatively to the appeal of Mr. Russell. 
I have no occasion for appealing in this case to the recollection of 
any one. I speak not only from the express and positive testimony 
of the joint despatch of 25 December, 1814, but from the record 
of a private diary, kept by me at the time, in which are minuted 
from day to day, with all the accuracy and detail in my power, the 
proceedings as well of the mission, as of both missions in their con- 
ferences : and I now affirm, that on the 28th of November, 1814, 
after a discussion of more than five hours, in which every member 
o{ the mission, except Mr. Russell, took part, a vote was taken 
upon the proposal of Mr. Gallatin, to accept the proposed altera- 
tion of the 8th article of the project, presented by the British 
plenipotentiaries, relating to the navigation of the Mississippi, ad- 
ding to it a counter stipulation for securing the fishing liberties 
within exclusive British jurisdiction ; that a majority of the mis- 
sion voted for this proposal, and that Mr. Gallatin should prepare 
for consideration the next day, an amendment to the 8th article con- 
formably ; — that on the 29th of November Mr. Gallatin did pro- 
duce this amendment, which, after another long discussion, was 
agreed to, and was the same offered to the British plenipotentiaries, 
as appears by the protocol of the 1st of December, 1814. It was 
to this vote of the majority, and to this alone, that the joint des- 
patch of 25 December, 1814, referred ; and it was to this vote, 
thus stated upon the face of the despatch, that Mr. Russell referred 
in his separate letter of the same date, when he said that he had 
been on that occasion in the minority. Yet it was not without rea- 
son that in my former remarks upon his letters I said, he gave, it 
fnnij be, a silent vote against the proposal : for, from the minutes 



165 

hi my diary, although I know that a vote was taken, and that there 
was a majority in favour of the proposal, yet it does not o[jpear 
that Mr. Russell voted against it ; and from an observation made 
at the time by Mr. Gallatin, to which Mr. Russell expressed no dis- 
sent, I should now rather conclude that he did not on that day vote 
at all. It was not unusual when a vote was taken, as soon as a ma- 
jority was ascertained, to omit calling for the vote of the fifth 
member ; and Mr. Russell was not unwilling to avail himself of 
these opportunities to avoid voting at all. However that fact may 
be, I repeat that he took no part in the discussion, and that after 
the vote was taken, it was Mr. Gallatin's impression, which he ex- 
pressed in Mr. Russell's presence without being contradicted by 
him, that he was then in favour of the proposal. 

The proposition to which Mr. Russell says he objected, [he should 
have said, against which he voted,] before the 10th of November, 
was not substantially that tirst oflTered on the 1st of December ; 
nor was the latter offered in virtue of the vote taken before the 
10th of November. The joint despatch of 25th December, says 
not one word of the vote taken before the 10th of November : nor 
had Mr. Russell's separate letter of 25th December, any reference 
to it whatever. His subsequent letters have indeed attempted to 
confound them together, for the purpose of urging against the pro- 
position which was made, the arguments, some of which had been 
used by Mr. Clay, against that which was not made. But these are 
all corrections made to suit present purposes. By comparing toge- 
ther the article upon which the vote was taken before the 10th of 
November, (1 shall soon say when) as Mr. Russell has published 
it in the Boston Statesman, and the proposal actually made as ap- 
pears in the protocol of 1st December, it will immediately be per- 
ceived, that they are essentially different ; and that the latter could 
not have been offered as the act of the American rjftission, by vir^^ 
tue of the vote taken upon the former. 

The history of the vote taken before the 10th of November is 
as follows : 

On the 29th of October, 1814, it was agreed at a meeting of the 
mission, that a draught of a project of a treaty should be made, to 
be discussed by the mission, and, as might he after such discussion 
settled by them, presented to the British plenipotentiaries. The 
task of making this draught was assigned to Mr Gallatin and me. 
Mr. Gallatin engaged to draw up the articles respecting the boun- 
daries and Indians, and I undertook to prepare those respecting 
impressment, blockade, and indemnities. 

At a meeting of the mission the next day, the draughts of the arti- 
cles were produced ; and among those offered by Mr. Gallatin was 
the article cited by Mr. Russell in the Boston Statesman of 27th June 
last. As it vvas finally set aside, I hSve no copy of it ; but have no 
reason to doubt that it was in the words cited by Mr. Russell. At 
this m.eeting, Mr. Clay objected to it, Air. Russell was not pre^ 
&ent. 

"A 



166 

The article was discussed further, chiefly between Mr. Gallatin 
and Mr. Clay, at meetings of the mission on the 31st of October, 
and on the 1st, 2d, and 3d of November. 

I had till then taken no part in the discussion. The following 
are extracts from my diary of subsequent dates, when, at meetings 
of the mission, all the articles of the draught were discussed. 

4 November, 1814. "The great diflficulty was with regard to 
" the fisheries. Mr. Gallatin's draught proposed the renewal of the 
*' right of fishing and drying fish within the British jurisdiction, to- 
"gether with the right of the British to navigate the Mississippi, 
" both taken from the peace of 1783. I was in favour of this. Mr. 
** Clay has an insuperable objection to the renewal of the right to 
" the British of navigating the Mississippi, I then declared myself 
*' prepared either to propose Mr. Gallatin's article, or to take the 
** ground, that the whole right to the fisheries was recognised as a 
" part of our national independence ; that it could not be abrogated 
*' by the war. and needed no stipulation tor its renewal. Mr. Clay 
" was averse to either of the courses proposed, and said that after 
" all if the British plenipotentaries shruld insist upon this point, we 
<' should all finally sign the treaty without the provision respect- 
*' ing the fishery. Mr. Russell expressed some doubt whether he 
" would sign without it ; and I explicitly declared that I would not, 
" without further instructions— I could not say that I would, with 
^' them." 

6 November, 1814. " The article concerning the fisheries and 
" the navigation of the Mississippi as drawn by Mr. Gallatin was 
*' further debated, and the vote taken upon it. Mr. Clay and Mr. 
" Russell voted against it — Mr. Bayard, Mr. Gallatin, and myself 
"for proposing it. After the vote was taken,. Mr. Clay said that 
" he should not sign the communication by which the proposal 
" would be made." 

7 November, 1814. "Mr. Clay proposed a paragraph for the 
" note to be sent to the British plenipotentiaries, as a substitute in- 
" stead of the article respecting the fisheries and the navigation of 
" the Mississippi, which had passed by vote on Saturday. Mr. 
" Clay said, that in declaring at that time that he should not sig« 
" the note accompanying the project, if it included Mr. Gallatin's 
" article, he had not intended that it should in any manner affect 
" the minds of any of us. If the article should be proposed and 
" accepted, and a treaty otherwise not exceptionable should be 
" obtainable he might perhaps ultimately accede to it ; but the 
" object was in his view so important, that he could not reconcile 
" it to himself to agree in making the proposal. His proposed pa- 
" ragraph took the ground which I had originally suggested that all 
*' the fishery rights formed a part of the recognition of our Inde- 
" pendence, and as such, were by our instructions excluded from 
" discussion. I said I should have preferred the proposal of Mr. 
"Gallatin's article, as placing the subject out of controversy ; but 
" that as we could not be unanimous for that, I was willing to tal^e 



167 

'^ Mr. Clay's paragraph, by which we should reserve all our rights, 
" and at the same time execute our instructions. Mr. Bayard said, 
" that rather than differ among ourselves, he would agree to sub- 
" stitute Mr. Clay's paragraph, instead of the proposed article, and 
" (his was ultimately assented to by us all." 

Mr. Russell has taken infinite pains to fasten exclusively upon 
me, the imputation of being the only asserter of this doctrine, that 
from the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, and from the 
nature of the tishing rights and liberties, they had none of them 
been abrogated by the war, and needed no new stipulation to pre- 
serve them. And it is this doctrine, which in the calmness of his 
urbanity he styles the dream of a visionary. 

I certainly never should have claimed the credit of having been 
alone in the assertion of this principle. I should have been wil- 
ling that all my colleagues, who united with me in assertinj;; it in 
the note of lOlh November, 1814, at Ghent, signed by them all, 
should have gone through life with the credit, and have left to pos- 
terity the reputation, of having had each an equal share in this 
assertion. But Mr. Russell has effectually disclaimed all his portion 
of it, and its consequences. He has represented it as, on the part 
of the minority, a pretext to preserve the fishing privilege, and to 
get rid of a proposition contirraative of the British right to the na- 
vigation of the Mississippi. He says he does not recollect that any 
member of the mission, except myself, appeared to be a very zeal- 
ous believer in that doctrine. I thank Mr. Russell for that concession. 
If there was moral virtue or has been successful result in the asser- 
tion of that principle to preserve the fishing liberties, I ask no more 
than an equal share in the esteem of my country, for having assert- 
ed it, with those of my colleagues who are yet willing to bear the 
imputation, not as a pretext, but with sincerity of heart, and as very 
zealous believers in it. But were every other living member of 
the mission to say, and were the spirit of Bayard from the tomb to 
join with them and declare, that they assumed this principle only 
in the spirit of compromise, and as a pretext, but that they con- 
sidered it only as the dream of a visionary, 1 would answer — the 
dream of the visionary was an honest dream. He believed what he 
affirmed and subscribed. And, I might confidently add, it has saved 
your fisheries. Nor should 1 need other proof, than the negotia- 
tions with Great Britain since the peace, and the convention of 
1818. 

I would further observe, that if the principle was assumed by 
the minority in the spirit of compromise, that spirit was much more 
strongly manifested by the majority, and particularly by me, in ac- 
cepting this substitute, instead of the article proposed by Mr. Gal- 
latin. I shall assuredly never deny, that from the time when the 
British plenipotentiaries notified to us, that their government did 
not intend to grant the fishing liberties without an equivalent, I 
felt an inexpressible solicitude for their preservation. I have al- 
rcadv remarked that this notification was made in terms so indefinite, 



168 

that its object apparently was to exclude us from the whole of the 
Newfoundland, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador fisheries. Mr. 
Russetl has not ventured to gontest this position ; nor could he 
have contested it with success. The notification, as entered upoa 
the protocol of conference of 8th August, 1814, made up jointly 
by both parties, was as follows : 

"The British commissioners requested information, whether 
" the American commissioners were instructed to enter into nego- 
" tiation on the above points ? But before they desired any answer, 
" they fell it right to communicate the intentions of their govern- 
*' ment as to the North American fisheries, V\x. That the British 
" government did not intend to grant to the United States, gratu- 
" itously, the privileges formerly granted by treaty to them, of 
'■'■fishing ■within the limits of the British sovereignty, and of using 
"' the shores of the British territories for purposes connected with 
" the fisheries." Wait's State Papers, vol. 9, p. 330. 

The remark upon it, made by the American mission, in their 
letter to the Secretary of State of 12lh August, 1814, was this : 

" The extent of what was considered by them as waters pecu- 
" liarly British, was not stated. From the manner in which they 
" brought this subject into view, they seemed to wish us to under- 
" stand, that they were not anxious that it should be discussed, and 
" that they only intended to give us notice, that these privileges 
*'■ had ceased to exist, and would not be again granted without an 
" equivalent, nor unless we thought proper to provide expressly in 
" the treaty of peace for their renewal." Ibid, p. 321. 

And what were the limits of British sovereignty, as to the North 
American fisheries ? Ask the Abbe Raynal. 

*' According to natural right, the fishery upon the great bank 
■' ought to have been common to all mankind ; notwithstanding 
" which, the two powers that had formed colonies in North Ame- 
■' rica, have made very little difficult}^ of appropriating it to them- 
" selves. Spain, who alone could have any claim to it, and who, 
'* from the number of her monks, might have pleaded the necessi- 
" ty of asserting it, entirely gave up the matter at the last peace, 
"' since which time the English and French are the only nations 
" that frequent these latitudes." RaynaVs Historxj, book 17. 

Ask the commentator on the marine ordinance of Louis XIV, 
Valin. After assigning soundings, as the extent of sovereign juris- 
diction, upon the sea, in regard to fisheries, he says : 

" As to the right of fishing upon the Bank of Newfoundland, as 
'•' that island, which is as it were, the seat of this fishery, then be- 
" longed to France, it wa« so held by the French, that other nations 
" could naturally fish there only by virtue of the treaties. This 
" has since changed, by means of the cession of the Island of New- 
" foundland, made to the English, by the treaty of Utrecht; but 
" Louis XiV, at the time of that ccssioa, made an express reserva- 



169 

" tion of the right of fishing uy)on the Bank of Newfoundland, in 
*' favour of the French, as before." VuUn, vol. 2, p. 093. 

And s!r. Jefferson, in his Report on the Fisheries, of 1st Febra- 
ary, 1791, had said : 

"Spain had formerl}' relinquished her preteiisions to a partici- 
" pation in these fisheries, at the close of the preceding war : and 
" at the end of this, the adjacent continent and islands beinj^ divided 
" between the United States, the English, and French, (foithe last 
'■' retained two small islands merely for this object,) the right of fish- 
'^ in^ WHS appropriated to them also." 

I did not entertain a doubt that the object of the British govern' 
ment then was, to exclude us from the whole of tiiis fishery, unless 
upon our own coast ; nor do I now, that if we had then acquiesced 
in their principle, they would have excluded us from it after the 
peace entirely. 

I did, therefore, feel a deep and earnest solicitude for them. 
Nor was that solicitude aliayod by the discovery that there was ia 
the heart of the mi'^sion itself, a disposition and an influence operat- 
ing against them ahnost as inflexibly, and, in my estimation, far 
more dangerously, than the British adversary himself. ' 

There were but two possible ways, after the British notification, 
of preserving these rights and liberties from total extinction. The 
one was, by obtaining a new recognition of them in the treaty, which 
could not be done without oflering an equivalent ; and the other 
was, 4)}' asserting that they had not been forfeited by the war, and 
would remain in full vigour, although the treaty should be conclud- 
ed without such an article. 

In preparing the draught of the treaty, Mr. Gallatin had drawn an 
article, stipulating anew the recognition, and oiTering, as the equiva- 
lent, the recognition of the British right to navigate the Mississippi, 
contained in the same treaty of 1783, and of which the British ple- 
nipotentiaries had demanded the renewal. 

Mr. Gallatin was a citizen of the Western Country, and as inca- 
pable as any other member of the mission, of sacrificing an essen- 
tial interest of one quarter of the Union, to a minor interest of ano- 
ther. I was, therefore, profoundly mortified to see his article ob- 
jected to on a principle o( covjlicting sectional interest, and still 
more so, to hear Mr. Russell observe, after his opinion had been 
disclosed by his vote, that the fisheries were an interest of a disaf- 
fected part of the country. I was as far as Mr. Russell from ap- 
proving the policy or the measures then predommating in New- 
England : but to cast away and surrender to the enemy the birth- 
right of my country, an interest as lasting as the ocean and the shores 
of my native land, for a merely momentary aberration, rather of its 
legislature than its people, was so far from meeting my concur- 
rence, that it sickened my soul to hear it hinted nom one of her 
own sons 

Considered merely and exclusively with reference to sectional 
interests. Mr, Gallatin's proposed article was fair and just. It pre- 



170 

posed that both interests should be placed on the same looting on 
which chay bad stood before the war. The first and paramount 
duty of the government was to bring the nation out of the war, 
with all its great uiterestf^ preserved. It was not to gain an advan- 
tage for one section, by the loss of an advantage to another. The 
principle of Mr. Gallatin's article was, that neither section should 
gain or lose by the issue of the war. The principle of the objec- 
tion to it was, that the West should gain, by the sacrifice of the in- 
terest of the East : and the main motive assigned for it was, that 
the East was a disaffected part of the country. 

Much, too, was said of the comparative value of the two liber- 
ties ; not by Mr. Russell, who had not then made, or at least did 
not disclose, his notable discovery of incessant fogs, and their dele- 
terious effects upon the fisheries. But doubts were expressed, on 
one side, whether the fisheries were of much value : and opinions 
iverevery confidently expressed, on the other, that the navigation 
of the Mississippi would be to the British of no vg.lue. Neither 
evidence nor argument was adduced to show the small value of the 
fisheries. But that the navigation of the Mississippi would be to 
the British of no value, and of no injury to us, was proved, first, 
by the experience of thirty years, from the peace of 1783 to the 
war of 1812, during which they had possessed it without inconve- 
nience to us or benefit to themselves ; secondly, by the apparent 
fact, that after abandoning their claim to a boundary line to the 
Mississippi, and consequently the power of ever forming any settle- 
ment upon its banks, there was neither present nor prospective 
interest, which could make the mere right of navigating it down- 
wards to the ocean, of any value to them. It vv^as absolutely noth- 
ing more than a right of travelling upon a highway ; and all rational 
foresight, as well as all past experience, led to the conclusion, that 
the privilege would remain as it had been, merely nominal. The 
objections against this reasoning were all speculation against fact ; 
all surmises of what might be in fut:ire, against the uniform tenour 
of what had been before. When, afterwards, the proposition of the 
first of December was actually made to the British plenipotentia- 
ries, the immediate rejection of it by their government, and the 
reasons which they assigned for rejecting it, demonstrated that thexj 
considered it at least no equivalent for the part of the fisheries, of 
which they intended to deprive us : and their final abandonment, 
without any equivalent, of all claim to it, in negotiating the conven- 
tion of 1818, completed the proof that they had always considered 
it as a mere name, the only use they ever could make of which was 
to obtain, if they could, something for renouncing it.* 

* I take this opportunity to rectify an inaccuracy in the statement oi" my re- 
marks upon Mr. Russell's letter, that at the negotiation of that Convention, the 
navigation of the Mississippi was not even asked by the British. On recurring 
to the documents of that negotiation, 1 find that it was asked, but easily aban- 
fioned. Our Negotiators v ere instructed not to accede to it. 



171 

Mr. Russell sayg, that I expressed at Ghent my great contempt of 
the British right to reach and navigate the Mississippi : and Mr. 
Russell's motive for using this expression is as apparent as it is invi- 
dious. I never, at Ghent or elsewhere, expressed contempt of this 
right, otherwise than by maintaining, that in the nature of things it 
must and would be, as it had been, a naked right without use ; of no 
value to them, and of no damage to us. For this opinion my rea- 
sons are now before the public ; and if a solid answer to them can 
be given, I shall be ready to acknowledge that I have been mistaken 
in entertaining it. But I shall not take for such answer, any thing 
that was said at Ghent ; and much less any thing since alleged by 
Mr. Russell. I shall not take for an answer, the immense import- 
ance TO us of the IMississippi and its navigation. No man has a 
deeper sense of i( than I have ; but it has no bearing on the ques- 
tion. The navigation of the Rhine is of immense importance to the 
people of Germany and of France. There are treaties, by which 
the right to this navigation, both ascending and descending, is stipu- 
lated for all mankind.* The people of the United States enjoy it 
as much as the people of France or of Germany. Is it of any va- 
lue to «s ? Is it of any injury to them? 1 shall not take foi- an 
answer Mr Russell's perpetual misstatements of the question ; 
his perpetual confounding of the article tirst proposed by Mr. Gal- 
latin, which was never proposed to the British, with the amend- 
ment to the 8th article, which was proposed to them and rejected ; 
his perpetual confounding of both with the 3d article of the treaty 
of 1794. Mr. Russell says he has good reason to believe, that not 
another member of the mission agreed with me in this opinion. 
The best possible proof that Mr. Russell himself entertained it, is 
found in the straits to which he is reduced to muster arguments 
against it. His ingenuity cannot devise a plausible objection to the 
proposal as it was made : so he substitutes in its stead, at one time 
the article tirst proposed by Mr. Gallatin, and never offered ; at 
another, the third article of the treaty of 1794 ; at a third, his con- 
jectural inferences of abuses which might be made of the privi- 
lege, as if the United States would have had no power to control 
them. His argument is never against the proposal as it Ti-as made. 
It is always against the substitute of his own imagination. Mark 
his words: 

" It would be absurd to suppose that any thing impossible was 
*' intended, and that Great Britain was to be allowed to navigate 

* "The navigation of the Rhine, from the point where it becomes navigablc- 
*' unto the sea, and vice versa, shall be free, so that it can be interdicted to no 
•* one : and at tlie future Congress, attention shall be paid to the establishment 
♦' of the principles, according to which the duties to be raised by the states bor- 
" deting on the Rhine, may be regulated, in the mode the most impartial, and 
*' the most favourable to tlie commerce of all nations.^'' [Dejinitive Treaty be- 
tween France and Great Britain, of 30 Mai/, 18l4.] 

The same stipulation is contained in the Vienna Congress Treaties, and ex.- 
tepded 10 tl\e Nerlfer, the Mayne, the Moselle, the Meuse, and the Scheldt. 



172 

I 

'* the IMississippi precisely as she could hnve navigated it inime- 
" diately after (lie treaty of 1783; as if her territories extended 
" to it, and as if Sjrain was in entire possession of one of its hanks, 
" and of a considerable portion of the other. The revival of the 
" British right to navigate the Mis-^i^sippi, would be, under exist- 
" ing circumstances, a new and complete grant to her, measured by 
" these circumstances, and thence embracing not only the entire 
*' freedom of the whole extent of the river, but "the un'^estrainei . 
" access to it across our territories. If we did not intend this, we J- 1 
" intended nothing which Great Britain could accept," 

Now observe the amendment to the 8th article of the projected 
treaty, as it was proposed on the 1st of December, 1814, and re- 
jected : 

" The inhabitants of the United States shall continue to enjoy the 
*' liberty to take, dry, and cure tish, in places within the exclusive . 
"jurisdiction of Great Britain, as secured by the former treaty of^ 
" peace ; and the navigation of the river Mississip])i, within the ' 
" exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, shall remain free and 
" open to the subjects of Great Britain, inthe manner secured by the ^ 
" said treaty ; and it is further agreed that the subjects of his Bri- ) 
" tannic majesty rha'.l at all times have access, from such place asf 
*' may be selected for Lhat purpose, in his Britannic majesty's afore-* 
*' said territories, west, and within 300 miles of the Lake of the 
" Woods, in the afoi-esaid territories of the United States, to the 
" river Mississippi, in order to enjoy the benefit of the navigation 
" of that river, with their goods, effects, and merchandise, whose 
" importation into the said States shall not be entirely prohibited, 
*' on the payment of the same duties as would be payable on the 
" importation of the same into the Atlantic ports of the said States, 
*' and on conforming n'ith the usual custom-house regulations." 

After reading tliis. if yon inquire how it was possible for Mr. Rus- 
sell to say, in the passage of his letter immediately preceding it, that 
we offered the navigation of the Mississippi to the British othermise 
than as it had beer; secured to them by the treaty of 1783, and that 
we offered them unrestrained access to it across our territories ; 
the only possible answer (o the question will be, that it was neces- 
sary for his argument to say so ; for the very pro|)osition which he 
says was nothing ~d:3hicli Great Britain could accept, was the identi- 
cal proposition which v/e did make, and which she did not accept. 
We did oflor, in express terms, and in no others, the navigation, wi 
the manner serured by the treaty of 1783. We oflered the access 
to it, restrained to a single point of departure, 300 miles west of 
the Lake of the Woods ; restrained to the admission only of goods 
not prohibited, to the payment of duties on merchandise admitted, 
and to compliance with all the custom-house regulations. Mr. Rus- 
sell says that it embraced the entire freedom of the whole extent 
of the river. And so it did at the peace of 1783 : for it was then 
secured to Great Britain, not only by the treaty with the United 



i73 

States, but by her treaties with Spain ; secored indeed in a mannfef 
far more unrestrained than in our proposal ; for by the treaties 
with Spain, she was entitled to the passage both in and out of the 
mouth of the river, and that none of her vessels should be stopped, 
visited, or subjected to the payment of any dut)' whatsoever. The 
right, therefore, which she would have held under the proposal of 
1st December, 1814, would have been, so far as our original territo- 
ry extended, precisely the same as by her treaty with us of 1783 ; 
and so far as related to the territory which had belonged to Spain, 
in 1783, infinitely more restricted than it had been under her trea- 
ties with Spain. Yet under all the advantages of the right as se- 
cured to her by her treaties with Spain, it never had been of any 
use to her ; for the simple reason that she had no settlement on the 
river. Now, her boundary, as with us, remained, at the negotia- 
tion of Ghent, precisely the same as it had been agreed upon at the 
peace of 1783. She had formed no settlement on the river; but 
she was entitled by that treaty to a line from the Lake of the Woods 
to it. We proposed to her a new line, which would cut her off 
from it ; which she offered to accept, with the reservation of the 
yight to navigate the river. All the change, therefore, between 
the right which Great Britain had enjoyed under the treaties of 
1783, and that which she would have enjoyed under our proposal 
of 1814, was to the disadvantage of Great Britain, and went to the 
annulment of the value to her, even contingent and eventual, of the 
right. 

The worthlessness to (he British of this right of navigating the 
Mississippi, had been very distinctly perceived, and clearly pointed 
out in the debates, in the British Parliament, on the preliminary 
articles of peace of November, 1782. On that occasion, the Earl 
of Carlisle said, in the House of Lords : 

" But we keep the navigation of the Mississippi ! and so we might 
" say that we keep that of the Rhone or the Rhine. We are not 
*' possessed, for 3000 miles, of a single acre of its shores : and 
*' West Florida, where the Mississippi meets the sea, is by the 
" treaty in the hands of the Spaniards. To what sort of under- 
'* standings is this fallacy addressed, or for what description of ra- 
♦' tional beings is this delusion calculated ?" 

Lord Walsingham : — " Nothing could be so absurd as to stipulate 
" for the navigation of the Mississippi, and yet cut off all communi- 
^' cation with it. What was meant by the navigation of the Missis- 
" sippi, as agreed on in the treaty, he professed he could not tell." 

Viscount Stormont — " exposed in glaring colours the folly ot 
" stipulating for the navigntion of the Mississippi, when every thing 
" that could make the Mississippi valuable, was gone. We had no 
*' coast ; there was no junction even with the Lakes ; no commu- 
" nication by which we could transport our furs to any market. In 
" short, the article for the navigation of the Mississippi was an iu- 
" suit on our understandings, added to all the injuries done to eur 
" property by the present peace.'" 



174 

Viscount Sackville : — " All the forts were on the American side ;, 
" the immense district of country which supplied us with masts was 
" gone ; the Indian nations were abandoned ; and we were insult- 
" ed with the navigation of the Mississippi, when all its benefits 
" were taken away." 

To all this, the only reply of the minister, the Earl of Shel' 
burne, was : 

" The navigation of the Mississippi has been reprobated as an 
." useless acquisition. Could men seriously assert this ? Was a 
" navigation of so many hundred miles up a country where ther<i 
''.is a call for our manufactures, an useless thing ? Surely not." 

[Ha7isard''s Parliamenlary History, vol. 23. 

In the House of Commons, lord North said : 

" There seems to be a peculiar mockery in the article which 
" grants us an eternal and free navigation of the Mississippi, from 
" its source to the ocean, in participation with the Unite(l States. 
*' Such is the freedom of the navigation, that where we were not 
" locally excluded, we have effected it by treaty We were ex- 
•' eluded by the northern boundary. The east is possessed by the 
" Americans. The west had been ceded by the peace of Paris to 
" the French, who had since granted it to the Spaniards ; and each 
*' shore, at its mouth, is ceded by the present treaty t© Spain. — 
" Where is then this navigation, so free and open, to be commenced ? 
" All the possession, I believe, that we shall ever have, will be its 
" nomination in this treaty. We must be content with the grant, 
" without the possession." p. 451. 

Mr. Fox :— " By the boundaries which have been so carelessly 
" prescribed, we have excluded ourselves from the Mississippi ; 
" so that we only retain the name, without being able to enjoy its 
" possession." p 635. 

To these objections, no reply was made in the House of Com- 
mons. They were all grounded on the very obvious principle that 
the mere right of navigating a river from its source to the ocean, 
can be of no use to a nation, having no settlement on the river ; 
yet, at that time, as Great Britain retained a boundary line to the 
river, she might have subsequently formed a settlement upon it 
which would have given value to the right. At the time of the 
treaty of Ghent, thirty years of experience had proved the cor- 
rectness of those views by which the right of navigating the Mis- 
sissippi, reserved to the British by the treaties of 1783, had been 
represented as merely nominal and worthless ; and by the propos- 
ed 8th article of the treaty, Great Britain was to abandon her claim 
even of ever coming in territorial contact with the river. 

Until a better answer, therefore, than this can be given to the 
opinion that the proposal ofTered to the British would have been, 
if accepted, of no value to them, and of no injury to us, I shall take 
{he liberty to consider it as demonstrated. Nor will it be sufficient 



1^5 

for Mr. Russell to say, that he still differs in opinion with' me, ami 
will probably continue to differ in opinion with me, on this point : 
for I have proved from his own words that his opinion did not 
differ from mine, as to the proposal actually made; and if he does 
differ with me now, it is only in as much as he differs with himself. 

As to the value, the comparative value of the fisheries to us, with 
this admission of a mere naked ri2;ht in foreij^ners to travel on one 
of our hif^h-ways, constitutionally declared to be forever free to all 
the citizens of every State in tiie Union, I cannot again withhold 
my surprize that it should be denied, by acitizen of Massachusetts; 
If a citizen of Georgia should publish a laborious argument to 
prove that the right of cultivating cotton, or a citizen of Louisiana 
should maintain that the right of raising sugar, was of no value to 
the people of the United States, is it to the derision or to the indig- 
nation of his country, that his dissertation would prove the most 
effectual passport.^ And if such an argument should be written, 
not as an idle amusement to show with how much ingenuity the 
wildest absurdities might be maintained, but as a grave state-paper, 
addressed to the supreme authority of the Union, striking directly, 
not at the mere theoretical right, but at the actual exercise of it by 
the citizens of Georgia or of Louisiana, and directly tending, in con- 
currence with a foreign power contesting it, to deprive them of it 
forever — what would the people of Georgia and Louisiana, what 
would the people of the United States, say to such a citizen ?— 
Should it further appear, that this very citizen, at the very time of 
his composing the work, was a member of a commission specially 
charged and instructed to defend and maintain, against the most 
ibrniidable of national enemies, the same right, which he was thus 
exercising every faculty of his mind irredeemably to destroy ; that 
after subscribing his name to a principle containing the last and only 
defence of this right, while the contest was yet pending, and he 
himself was yet charged with its support, he should contradict his 
own signature, exhaust his ingenuity to prove the principle totally 
destitute of foundation, and style it the dream of a visionary, to 
ridicule one of his colleagues for believing it ; such a rare combi- 
nation of incidents would doubtless present a moral and political 
character to the contemplation of the States most immediately inte- 
rested in his conduct, and to the Union, which would not soon be 
obliterated from their memorj'. 

That which a native citizen of Georgia or of Louisiana would 
have done, under the circumstances here supposed, if the right of 
cultivating cotton or sugar had been at stake, Mr. Russell, a native 
of Massachusetts, has done, in the hour of danger to her fishery. 
The Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and La- 
brador fisheries, are in nature, and in the consideration both of 
their value and of the right to share in them, one fishery. To be 
cut off from the enjoyment of that right, would be to the people of 
Massachusetts, a calamity similar in kind, and comparable in de- 
gree, with an interdict to the people of Georgia or Louisiana tO: 



17& 

cultivate cotton or sugar. To be cut off even from that portion ot" 
it which was within the exclusive British jurisdiction in the strict- 
est sense, within the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and on the coast of La- 
brador, would have been like an interdict upon the people of 
Georgia or Louisiana to cultivate with cotton or sugar three-fourths 
of the lands of those respective States. The fisheries of Massa- 
chusetts are her cotton plants and her sugar canes. She is not blest 
with the genial skies, nor gifted with the prolific soil, of southern 
climes ; but that which nature has denied to her shores, she has 
bestowed upon her neighbouring seas, and to them she is indebted 
for copious sources of nourishment and subsistence, if not of opu- 
lence and splendour, to thousands of her sons. 

Of the value of these fisheries, none but general information was 
possessed by the American negotiators at Ghent. Their instruc- 
tions were, not to inquire into their value, but not to surrender any 
part of them. After the peace was made, while Mr. Russell was 
intent upon his discovery that they were worthless by reason of 
incessant fogs and humidities of atmosphere, and straining his dia- 
lectic powers and his diplomatic erudition, to prove that the right 
to them was irretrievably lost, I was impelled by my sense of 
duty to seek more particular information of the value both of that 
fishery, generally, and of that portion of it, which, by the most re- 
stricted construction of the notification which we had received, 
would be denied us if that notification should be carried into effect. 
I obtained it from various sources ; but principally from one of the 
most distinguished merchants and statesmen of this Union : and as 
it concerns an object of great national interest, I shall publish it, 
with some additional observations of my own. It will have the ef-* 
feet of sunshine upon all Mr. Russell's fogs. 

Immensely valuable as it will prove these fisheries to be, yet if the 
question involved in the article first proposed by Mr. Gallatin had 
been such, that while securing to the people of New England the 
continued enjoyment of them, it would in any the slightest degree 
have impaired the enjoyment, by the people of the Western 
Country, of their right to navigate the Mississippi, the objection to 
it would have been serious and great. Could it have affected ma- 
terially their enjoyment ot that right, the objection would have 
been insuperable, and Mr. Gallatin never would have thought of 
making the proposal. But no such consequence could flow from it. 
The people of the West are left by it in the tull enjoyment of all 
their rights. Nothing was taken from them. But British subjects 
from Canada would have been entitled to travel by land or water to 
the river, and to descend in boats to its mouth. They now enjoy 
the right as much as they would have enjoyed it if the article had 
been proposed and accepted. The only difference is, that they now 
enjoy it, as not prohibited by lav/, while by the proposed article it 
would have been secured to them by treaty. 

The objection to Mr. Gallatin's proposed article, therefore, was 
an objection to securing to^ New England the continued enjoymeijt 



177 

of the fisheries, because the price of its purchase would be to per- 
mit British subjects to travel a highway in the Western Country. 
It was inapossible to make of it any thing more ; and deeply con- 
cerned as I felt for the fate of the fisheries, I greatly regretted 
that the objection was made to it. Not that I expected it would be 
accepted by the British plenipotentiaries. 1 too well knew the 
value which they get upon the fisheries, and the worthlessness at 
which they must estimate the naked right to them of navigating the 
Mississippi, to consider it as probable that they would accept the 
proposal. But our duty as ministers of the Union, charged with 
the defence of all its rights and liberties staked upon the conllict, 
and specially instructed not to surrender the fisheries, was to use 
every fiiir exertion to preserve them. And Mr. Gallatin's proposal 
was one of the only two possible modes of eflecting it. 

Nevertheless, as a strong and enniest opposition to proposing the 
article was made, avowedly founded upon a supposed interest 
■merely sectional ; after a discussion continued through six succes- 
sive days, at the last of which only I had taken part, and before the 
vote was taken, I did, on the 4th of November, declare myself pre- 
pared either to propose Mr. Gallatin's article, or to take the ground 
that all the rights and liberties in the fisheries were recognised as 
a part of our national independence, that they could not be abro- 
gated by the war, and needed no stipulation for their renewal — to 
assert this principle in the note to be sent to the British plenipo- 
tentiaries, with the project of the treaty, and to omit the article 
altogether. 

Mr. Russell, in the acuteness of his perceptions, discovers an in- 
consistency between these two opinions. In his letter from Paris 
he charged it as an inconsistency upon the majority of the mission. 
In the Boston Statesman he returns to it as an inconsistency of mine. 
According to his doctrine, the assertion of a right or liberty, is incon- 
sistent with the offer of a stipulation for its recognition. The first 
article of the preliminaries, of November, 1782, was, according to 
this doctrine, incojisistent with the Declaration of Independence, 
Why stipulate for a right, which you hold by virtue of your own 
declaration ? I cannot waste words in refuting such positions as 
these. So of the pretended inconsistency of stipulating for the li- 
berty, leaving the right to the fisheries to rest upon the recognition 
in the treaty of 1783. The stipulation offered was co-extensive 
with the portion of right contested by the adverse party. There 
was no motive for asking a stipulation for that which they did not 
question. If the British plenipotentiaries had not notified to us 
that f/iCJ/ considered our privileges of fishing within the limits of 
British sovereignty, as forfeited by the war, I never should have 
thought of asking a new stipulation to secure them. If thoir doc- 
trine and Mr. Russell's was right, that the rshole treaty of 1783 was 
abrogated by the war, and that our only title to the fishing liber- 
ties was t^ grant of his Britannic majesty's, in that treaty, which. 
fey the mere existence of way, was totally extinguished, they were 



178 

under no necessity whatever to give us that notilication. They 
might have concluded the treaty without saying a word about the 
fisheries, and ilwi have told us that they had been forfeited by the 
war. But they knc >v better. They knew that not only war, but 
(Conquest, was necessary to wrest from us any right or liberty recog- 
nised by them as belonging to us by the treaty of 1783. To acroin- 
plish this conquest, despairing to obtain from us an express renun- 
ciation by treaty, as they had obtained it tVom Spain in 1763, they 
tried to obtain it by means of our acquiescence in this notitication ; 
and they made it in i-ndetinite terms, seeming to strike only at the 
portion of the fisheries within their most restricted territorial ju- 
risdiction, but susceptible, if once acquiesced in by us, of a con- 
struction sanctioned by the whole history and public law relative 
to those fisheries, which would deprive us of them ali, including 
those of the Grand Bank. 

The article proposed by Mr. Gallatin covered the whole ground 
disputed by the adversary ; and the advantage of it to us, if pro- 
posed and accepted, would haye been, that we should have issued 
from the war, with all the fishing rights and liberties, as enjoyed 
before it, uncontested. When, therefore, during the discussion, 
and before the vote had been taken, I oficred to abandon this ad- 
vantage, and to rest the future defence of the fishing rights and 
liberties upon the distinct assertion that they had uot been forfeited 
or abrogated by the war, by thus resting it, I knew that it would 
be necessary to defend them, after the conclusion of the peace — 
to defend them against the power, and the policy, and the intet- 
lect of Great Britain. It was placing them all at the hazard of 
future negotiation and another war : and 1 thought I offered a 
signal concession, of deference to the mere sectional feelings of 
one western member of the mission, by ofl'ering to accept the al- 
ternative. But I felt the most entire confidence in the soundness 
of the principle which I asserted. I knew that it was sufficient to 
preserve the fishing rights and liberties from surrender. 1 was 
content with it as a fulfilment of our express instructions ; and I 
relied upon the determined spirit and active energy of my country 
50 maintain it after the peace. I had no doubt of the ultimate re- 
i»ult, so long as our assent to the British doctrine and notification 
was neither expressed nor implied. 

My proposal was not however accepted, until, upon taking the 
vote on the question whether the article proposed by Mr. Gallatin 
should be offered to the British plenipotentiaries, it appeared there 
was a majority of the mission in favour of it. This vote was taken 
as has been stated, on the 5th of November ; and on the 7th the 
substitute, being the proposition which I had suggested on the 4tb, 
was offered by Mr. Clay, and unanimously accepted. The article 
was not proposed to the British plenipotentiaries, nor was the con- 
sideration of it ever after resumed. 

This transaction, therefore, was totally distinct from that of the 
*J8th and 29th gf November ; and as it terminated m no act of tb« 



179 

nitssion, was not even mentioned, nor was the remotest allusion t« 
it made in the joint letter of the mission to the Secretary of State, 
of 25th December. It is true, that on the 5th of November, when 
the vote upon Mr. Gallatin's offered article was taken, the instruc- 
tions of 19th October precedins;, canoelhng the paragraph of the in- 
structions of 15th April, 1813, cited by Mr. Russell in his duplicate, 
although written and on their passage, had not been received ; but 
it is equally tnie, that through the whole discussion preceding the 
vote of 5th November, although every objection which an ardent, 
profound, and vigorous mind could suggest against the article was 
adduced, yet no mention was made of this paragraph of the instruc- 
tions of 15th April, 1813. It never was alleged that the article would 
violate those instructions ; and if it had been alleged the answer 
would have been obvious, that so long as Grej'.t Britain retained 
a claim to the boundary line to the Mississippi, we couW not as- 
sume for granted that that river was within our exclusive jurisdic- 
tion, nor consequently that the instructions of 15th April, 1813, for- 
bad us from agreeing to a stipulation reserving the right of British 
subjects to its navigation. Mr. Russell says, that in my remarks I 
admit, at least by implication, that the letter and spirit of the in- 
struction of 15th April, 1813, were against the offer. I admit^ 
no such thing; but think I have proved the contrary. I say thai; 
never, either in the discussions preceding the vote of 6th Novem- 
ber, 1814, or in those of 28th and 29th November, were the instruc- 
tions of 15th April, 1813, alleged against the offer : nor did I show 
to Mr. Russell at the Department of State, the record of the in- 
structions of 4th and 19th October, to show that we were released 
from the obligation of observing the instructions of 15th April, 1813. 
I showed them to him to prove, that in the variations of his dupli- 
cate, fabricated at Washington in 1822, from his real letter written 
at Paris in 1815, he had not only introduced a new charge of ag- 
gravated crimination against his colleagues, contradicted by the 
express words of his real letter, but that he had cited, in proof of 
this charge, an instruction, which at the time when the question 
was taken, against which he now, speaking as if in 1815, averred, 
in contradiction to what he had really said in 181. 5, that he had: 
voted, because he thought it violated that instruction, he knew 
had been cancelled. I showed them to him to prove, that what he 
now alleged as his main motive for voting against the proposition, 
had not been and could not have been his real motive : that it was 
an invention of 1822, held forth as a narrrtive of facts in 1814. 

1 trust I have now shown, beyond the reach of reply, that the 
same character belongs to whnt he calls the real history of the 
offer made to the British plenipotentiaries on the 1st of December, 
1814, in contradiction to the summary statement of it which I had 
given in my remarks on his letters. 

But at the close of Mr. Russell's publication in the Boston 
Statesman of 27th June, there is an insinuation, upon which I have 
a word to say, and with which I shall take leave of this part of hi? 



J80 

reply. He says he shall have abundant reason to rejoice, if in di» 
recting the infirmities of my temper against him, they shall have 
been diverted from a course in which they might have been disastrous 
to the country. If in the history of my life, or in that of the coun- 
try, Mr. Russell could allege a single incident, in which the infir- 
mities of my temper ever have taken a course disastrous to the 
country, I should have felt this Parthian shaft to be as deeply tinged 
with venom to me, as with bitterness from the he^rt whence it sped. 
But it has fallen short of its mark ; equally harmless to me and 
useless to the professed patriotic self-devotion of the archer. 

And how stands the account of Mr. Russell ? At the negotiation 
of Ghent, he had, as a member of the niission, been instructed, in 
terms the most positive and unqualified, not to surrender the fish- 
eries. In that instruction, no sophistical distinction between a 
right in the fisheries held by virtue of our Independence, and a 
liberty in the fisheries held by grcmt from Great Britain, was war- 
ranted or allowed. No part of them was to be surrendered. And 
the instruction was pointed and precise, to break off the negotiation 
sooner than surrender them. The British plenipotentiaries had 
presented the demand of surrender in such form, that there were 
only two possible modes of saving them ; one, to agree to a new 
stipulation recognising them ; the other, to maintain that they had 
not been abrogated by the war. A stipulation for a new recognifc 
tion is offered. Mr. Russell votes against it, because, as he alleges, 
it would deprive the western country of an advantage, which they 
would otherwise derive from the war. He prefers that the East 
should lose, so that the West may gain, by the result of the war. 
He rejects the proposal which would place both interests on the 
!ta7ne footing as before the war. The East is his native section of 
the Union. But it is. a disaffected part of the countr}* : and then — 

" Westward the star of empire takes its course." 

Well — the other alternative is presented ; to maintain that the 
liberties in question were not abrogated by the war. Mr. Russell 
subscribes to this : but he now says it was " in the spirit of com- 
promise, as a PRETEXT to preserve the fishing privilege, and to get 
rid of" the other proposition. Subsequently, Mr. Russell assents 
to the other proposition itself, and subscribes his name to a letter 
declaring that he had no objection to it. But this too he now says 
was only in deference lo the majority, and for fear that if he did 
not subscribe, the enemy would accept it. The enemy, however, 
despise this equivalent, so extravagant in the eyes of Mr. Russell ; 
and no sooner is it offered to them than they reject it. The peace 
is concluded. The Missis!?ippi navigation is not conceded to the 
British ; and the preservation of the fishing liberties to this nation, 
depends exclusively upon their maintaining the principle, that 
they had not been abrogated by the zvar. Six weeks after signing 
this treaty, Mr. Russell, still commissioned as a member of the 
mission to negotiate a treaty of commerce with Great Britain, lia- 



181 

Me every hour to be called to a share in that negotiation, and to 
fhe duty of maintaining against British negotiators our fishing liber- 
ties, deliberately sits down and writes to his government a long 
and learned diplomatic discourse to prove, that the fishing liberties 
were irretrievably lost ; that there was not a shadow of right to 
them remaining ; that the principle upon which he and his col- 
leagues had staked them at Ghent, was the dream of a visionary ; 
that our only title to them was a grant, in the treaty of 1733 ; that 
the treaty of 1783 was a dead letter, and that the only possible ex- 
pedient for us to recover them, was by oifering for them an equi- 
valent, "fair in its comparative value, and just in its relative ef- 
fects ;" and, as the profoundest of all his discoveries, reveals to 
them that this equivalent must be taken " wherever it might be 
found.'' 

This letter, Mr. Russell writes, not in cypher ; commits it to 
the ocean, before hostilities have ceased ; and exposes it in various 
ways to be intercepted by the enemy. It reaches, however, its 
destination, after the ratification of the peace, and just about the 
time when British cruisers, stationed on the fishing grounds, warn 
all American fishing vessels not to approach within sixty miles of 
the shores. Such is the practical exposition given by the British 
government of their meaning in the indefinite notification that they 
intended to exclude us from fishing 7vithin the limits of British so- 
vereignty : and that exposition was supported by all the historical 
public law applicable to the case, and by the most eminent writers 
upon the law of nations. The complaints of the American fisher- 
men, thus interrupted in their honest industry, and interdicted 
from the exercise of it, and the argument of Mr. Russell to de- 
monstrate the abrogation of the treaty of 1783 by war, and the 
consequent discontinuance of the fishing privilege, (as he terms it) 
must have been received about the same time, by the Secretary of 
State. If the argument had been as successful, as it had been la- 
boriously wrought, what a happy answer it would have supplied 
for Mr. Monroe to the complaints of the fishermen ! What a theme 
for the instructions to be given to the American minister at Lon- 
don, upon this emergency ! 

But the President of the United States and the Secretary of 
State of that day, were no converts to the doctrine of Mr. Russell ; 
nor believers in the worthlessness of the fishing liberties. The 
minister at London was instructed to remonstrate against the inter- 
ruption of the fishermen, and to maintain the rights of the nation. 
A correspondence with the British government ensued, in which 
the question as to the abrogation of the treaty of 1783 was tho- 
roughly discussed. The orders to the British cruisers were partly 
disavowed, and partly countermanded. The negotiation was con- 
tinued until that of the convention of 1818 commenced, and merg- 
ed in it. The British government never formally renounced their 
and Mr. Russell's doctrine, that the war of 1812 had abrogated the 
treaty of 1783. As little did the government of the United States 

23 



182 

renounce the doctrine, that all their rights and liberties, recognised 
by the treaty of 1783, were in full force as if the war of 1812 had 
never occurred. The conflict of opinion was adjusted by a new 
article, as little liable to be abrogated by a future war, as the treaty 
of Independence. By this article, we have expressly renounced 
a small portion of the liberties within the exclusive and limited 
territorial jurisdiction of part of the British provinces, and have 
received in equivalent an enlargement of those liberties on the 
coast and shores of Newfoundland. The substance of the contest 
has been conceded to us ; and each party has adhered to its doc- 
trine. Now, if Mr. Russell had been charged with this negotiation 
on the part of the United States, as, at the time when he wrote 
his letter of Ilth February, 1815, there was a probability that he 
might be, what would have been his situation, and how would this 
great interest of his country have stood, if when tirst ordered to 
remonstrate against the interruption of the American lishermen by 
British cruisers in 1815, the British government had answered 
him by a copy of his own letter, written but six months before at 
Paris ? 'V'.. his own situation, perhaps, his memory may furnish 
him a parallel, from the feelings with which on the 29th of April 
last, he learnt that the original of his letter had been found. But 
for the interest of his country, what had his letter left him the power 
to say to the British government, in the case supposed ? For the 
maintenance of the liberties of his country, he had disabled his own 
pen, and sealed his own lips. He had come forth as the cham})ion 
of the cause of their adversary. The tisheries on the banks of 
Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and on the coast of 
Labrador, would have been lost to this Union ; lost, by the pre- 
varications (to use no harsher term) of a native of Massachu- 
setts. Is this, the man who charges me with infirmities of 
temper, which might have taken a course disastroxis to my country? 



II. Right of the People of the United States to the Fishing Liberties — 
Effect of War upon Treaties, and Treaty Stipulations — Peculiar 
character of the Treaty of 1783. 

When at the negotiations of Ghent, under an express instruction 
from the government of the United States, sooner to break off the 
negotiation than to surrender the fisheries ; after a notification from 
the British plenipotentiaries that their government " did not intend 
*' to grant to the United States, gratuitously, the privileges formerly 
"granted to them by treaty, oi fishing within the limits of the Bri- 
" tish sovereignty, and of using the shore? of the British territories, 
" for purposes connected with the fisheries" — I suggested to my 
colleagues, as an answer to be given to that notification, that all the 
rights and liberties, in the fisheries, having been recognised by 



183 

Great Britain in the treaty of 1783, as belonging to the people of 
the United States, none of them had been forfeited or abrogated by 
the war ; that we needed no new stipulation for their security, and 
that we should consider ourselves as much entitled to them after 
the peace, without an article concerning them as with one ; and 
when my colleagues unanimously, so far as their signatures could 
pledge their sentiments, united with me in asserting that principle; 
it certainly did not enter into my dreams, that seven years after- 
wards one of those same colleagues would traduce that doctrine 
before the legislative assembly of my country, as equivalent to a 
crime of state, and denounce me in the face of the natioa, as a 
visionary dreamer for believing it. 

1 lirst suggested it as an alternative, for an article proposed by 
another member of the mission, to be offered for a new stipulation, 
recognising again those liberties, for an equivalent recognition, of 
a similar liberty claimed by the other party, and deducible from 
the same principle — I had no objection to thai article, because it 
offered nothing but what I considered as necessarily flowing from 
the principle itself, and because, if accepted, it would not only have 
secured the interest, and the Hberties in question, but have pre- 
cluded all future controversy with the adverse party concerning 
them. But as one member of the mission had raised very earnest 
objections against the article, and as I was anxiously desirous of 
conciliating the feelings as well as of protecting the interests of 
every part of the Union, I was willing to accept the assertion of 
the principle, as a substitute for the stipulation of the article, and 
to rest the defence of the interest upon the future hrmness and in- 
telligence of my country. 

In the soundness of the principle itself I firmly believed and 
still believe : — I had proposed the assertion of it before the vote 
upon the question whether Mr. Gallatin's projected article should 
be offered to the British plenipotentiaries had been taken. — It was 
not then accepted, but after the vote had been taken, and a majo- 
rity of the mission had resolved to propose the article, my princi- 
ple was reproduced by Mr. Clay, and by unanimous consent 
was substituted for the article which it had been determined to 
offer. 

The paragraph as it appears in the note of 10th November, 
1814, from the American to the British plenipotentiaries, signed 
by all the members of the American mission, is as follows : 

." In answer to the declaration made by the British plenipoten- 
" tiaries respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, referring to what 
" passed in the conference of the Sth of August, can only state 
" that they are not authorized to bring into discussion any of the 
" rights or liberties which the United States have heretofore en- 
" joyed in relation thereto. From their nature, and from the pe- 
" culiar character ot the treaty of 1783, by which the} were re- 
'' cognised, no further stipulation has been deemed necessary by 



184 

" the government of the United States, to entitle them to the full 
*• enjoyment of all of them." 

As the treaty of Ghent was concluded without any article relat- 
ing to the fisheries, the only grounds upon which our rights and 
liberties in them could be maintained against Great Britain after 
the peace, were contained in the principle asserted by this para- 
graph. They rested, therefore, upon the nature of the rights and 
liberties of the people of this Union, in and to those fisheries, and 
upon the peculiar character of the treaty recognising them. What 
was the nature of those rights and liberties ? And what was the 
peculiar character of that treaty ? 

The nature of the rights and liberties, consisted in the free par- 
ticipation in a fishery. That fishery covering the bottom of the 
banks which surround the island of Newfoundland, the coasts 
of New-England, Nova Scotia, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and 
Labrador, furnishes the richest treasure and the most benefi- 
cent tribute that ocean pays to earth on this terraqueous globe — 
By the pleasure of the Creator of earth and seas, it had been con- 
stituted in its physical nature one fishery, extending in the open seas 
around that island, to little less than five degrees of latitude from 
the coast, spreading along the whole northern coast of this conti- 
nent, and insinuating itself into all the bays, creeks, and harbours 
to the very borders of the shores. For the full enjoyment of an 
equal share in this fishery, it was necessary to have a nearly ge- 
neral access to every part of it. The habits of the game which it 
pursues being so far migratory that they were found at difl'erent 
periods most abundant in diflerent places, sometimes populating 
the banks and at others swarming close upon the shores. The 
latter portion of the fishery had, however, always been considered 
as the most valuable, inasmuch as it afforded the means of drying 
and curing the fish immediately after they were caught, which 
could not be effected upon the banks. 

By the law of nature this fishery belonged to the inhabitants of 
the regions in the neighbourhood of which it was situated. By the 
conventional law of Europe, it belonged to the European nations 
which had formed settlements in those regions. France, as the 
first principal settler in them, had long claimed the exclusive right 
to it. Great Britain, moved in no small degree by the value of the 
fishery itself, had made the conquest of all those regions upon 
France, and had limited by treaty, within a narrow compass, the 
right of France to any share in the fishery. Spain, upon some 
claim of prior discovery had for some time enjoyed a share of the 
fishery on the banks ; but at the last treaty of peace, prior to the 
American revolution, had expressly renounced it. 

At the commencement of the American revolution, therefore, 
this fishery belonged exclusively to the British nation, subject to a 
certain limited participjition in it reserved by treaty stipulations 
to France. 



185 

By an act of parliament, passed in the reign of Edward the sixth, 
(1647) the Newfoundland fishery had been declared an unlicensed 
fishery, free to all the inhabitants of the realm, and in all th6 char- 
ters of the New-England colonies, the rights oCJishings, had beea 
granted, with special reserV.ations of the right of sharing in these 
fisheries to all British snbjects. The right " to use and exercise 
*' the trade of fishing upon the coasts of New-England, in any of 
" the seas thereunto adjoining, or any arms, of the said seas, or 
*' salt water rivers, where they have been wont to fish," together 
with the power to use the shores, for purposes connected with the 
fisheries, was expressly granted much at large, in the last charter 
of Massachusetts Bay, as it had been in those that preceded it. 
There was a gross mistake, therefore, in the assertion that the 
king of Great Britain might have interdicted the enjoyment of these 
fisheries to the people of the province of Massachusetts Bay. It 
was their birth-right, as British subjects ; it was their special right 
as secured to them by charter ; and the British parliament it- 
self could deprive them of it, as they did, only by one of those 
acts which provoked and justified the Declaration of Independence. 
In March 1775, the British parliament, passed " an act to restrain 
" the trade and commerce of the provinces of Massachusetts Bay 
" and New Hampshire, and colonics of Connecticut and Rhode- 
" Island, and Providence Plantation, in North America, to Great 
'■ Britain, Ireland, and the British islands in the West Indies ; and 
*' to prohibit such provinces and colonies from carrying on any 
"fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland, and other places therein 
"mentioned, under certain conditions and limitations." 

In moving for leave to bring in this bill, lord North " supported 
••' his motion by declaring, that as the Americans had refused to 
" trade with this kingdom, it was but just that we should not suffer 
" them to trade with any other nation. In particular, he said that 
«' the fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland, and the other banks, 
" and all the others in America, was the undoubted right of Great 
" Britain, therefore we might dispose of them as we pleased. That 
"although the two houses had not declared all Massachusetts Bay 
" in rebellion, they had declared, that there is a rebellion in that 
"province. It was just, therefore, to deprive that province of its 
^'■fisheries.'''' Hansard''s Parliamentarij History, vol. 18, p. 299. 

In the debates upon this bill, all the abilities and all the elo- 
quence of both parties in the British parliament were called forth. 
On this bill Mr, Charles Fox said, " that this bill must have been 
" calculated to put an end to all that remained of the legislative 
" authority of Great Britain over America. That it must be in- 
" tended to show to the colonies that there was no one branch ot 
" supreme authority which parliament might not abuse in such a 
" manner, as to render it reasonable to deny, and necessary to re- 
" sist it." Then after enumerating all their previous acts of oppres- 
sion, he added, " but the British legislature is now to convince the 
'? Aqigricans that tijis power thus used, may be made b^ far the 



186 

f' most oppressive, and worse than any of those they had hitherto 
" denied. He was quite satisfied, that tiie bill was meant for no- 
" thing else but to exasperate the colonies into open and direct 
" rebellion." 

Mr. Burke, pursuing the same idea, and enlarging upon it, applied 
to the ministry, who brought iorward the bill, the passage from 
Macbeth : 

" I am in blood 
*' Slept in so far, that should I wade no more, 
" Returning were as tedious as go o'er.'' 

He said " that the scheme was new, and unheard of in any civil- 
" ized nation ; to preserve your authority by destroying yourdomi- 
" nions. It was rather the idea of hostility between independent 
*' states, where one not being able to conquer another, thinks to re- 
" duce its strength gradually, by destroying its trade and cutting off 
" its resources." 

On the passage of the bill through the house of lords, there 
was a protest against it, signed by sixteen peers, among whom are 
the names of Rockingham, Camden, and Fitzwilliam. Among the 
reasons of this protest are the following : 

" Because the people of New England, beside? the natural claim 
" of mankind to the gifts of Providence on their own coast, are 
" specially entitled to the fishery by their charters, which have 
" never been declared forfeited" — 

" Because we conceive that the attempt which has been made to 
" bribe the nation into an acquiescence in this arbitrary act, by 
'♦ holding out to them (by evidence at the bar,) the spoils of the 
*' New England fishery, worth upwards of three hundred thousand 
" pounds sterling a year, to be a scheme full of weakness and in- 
" decency ; of indecency, because it may be suspected that the de- 
*' sire of the confiscation has created the guilt ; weak, because it 
" supposes that whatever is taken from the colonies is of course to 
" be transferred to ourselves. We may trample on the rules of 
" justice, but we cannot alter the nature of things. We cannot 
" convey to Great Britain the advantages of situation which New 
" England possesses for the fishery." 

But reason and eloquence were vain : the bill, styled by Mr. 
Burke " the grand penal bill, which passed sentence on the trade 
"and sustenance of America," was sanctioned by the then usual 
majorities of both houses of parliament ; and it is thus specially 
mentioned among the charges against George the third, in the De- 
claration of Independence : " He has combined with others to sub- 
" ject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknow- 
" ledged by our laws ; giving his assent to their acts of pretended 

" legislation -for cutting off our trade with all parts of the 

" world." 

Had Mr. Russell been a member of the Congress of 1776, with 
what admiration would that illustrious body have listened to his doc- 



]87 

trine that the British sovereign had an absohjte unlimited control 
over the commerce and fisheries of the colonies, and that he needed 
nothing more than iiis maxim ol" nullum tfimpus occurrit regi, to cut 
them otf from them, TJi'henever and however he might think proper. 

Had Mr. Russell been prime minister of Great Britain in 1775, 
with bow much easier and speedier a process than by an act of 
parliament, would he have cut oil' the commerce and the tisheries 
of the colonies. His doctrine of the royal prerogative, and his 
maxim of nullum tempus occurrit regi, would have sufficed, with 
a mere order in council to accomplish the work. 

This act of parliament continued in force during the whole war 
of the American Revolution ; and as the Declaration of Independ- 
ence was subsequent to and partly founded upon its enactment, 
when the parties came to negoti:'te the treaty of peace, or rather 
the preliminary articles of November, 1782, to which the whole 
argument applies, their situations and relative interests, claims, and 
principles, were certainly very peculiar. The whole fishery^ 
(with the exception of the reserved and limited right of France,) 
was the exclusive property of the British empire. The right to a 
full participation in that property, belonged by the law of nature to 
the people of New England, from their locality. Their national 
right to it as British subjects, had, as the United States maintained, 
been tyrannically violated, but not extinguished ; and, as the other 
party to the negotiation asserted, forfeited by their rebellion, and 
lawfully taken from them by act of Parliament, the supreme su- 
perintending authority of the whole empire. It was one of the 
questions upon which the war itself had hinged, and in the interval 
between the Declaration of Independence, and the negotiation for 
peace, it had been among the subjects of the deepest and most 
anxious deliberations of Congress, how this great interest should be 
adjusted at the peace. In the second volume of the Secret Jour- 
nals oli the Confederation Congress, recently published, it will be 
found, that from the 17th of February to the 14th of August, 1779, 
the various questions connected with this interest, I'ormed the sub- 
ject of the most earnest and continual debates, and the numerous 
propositions upon which the yeas and nays were taken, manifestly 
show the determination with which they resolved, in no event 
whatever, to abandon the right to share in this fishery ; and the 
perplexities under which they laboured in deciding, as well whether 
it should or should not be made a sine qua non for peace, as how 
they should secure the continuance of that portion of the fishery 
which, with the boundary line which they ultimately concluded to 
accept, would fall within the immediate territorial jurisdiction of 
the provinces to remain in British possession. 

By the third article of the preliminaries of November, 1782, and 
also by the corresponding article of the definitive treaty of 1783, 
the whole of the fishing rights and liberties were secured, and re- 
cognised, as rights and liberties, pre-existing, and not as (.mporary 
grants — the variation of the terms in the article, securing the right 



188 

to fish on the banks of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 
and at all other places in the sea, and the liberty to fish on the coasts 
«f Newfoundland and the other British provinces, arose only frora 
the circumstance, that by the same act which recognised these li- 
berties, (the treaty of peace,) the territorial jurisdiction of those 
provinces, which had until then been the same with that of the other 
British colonieS; became to the United States aybre?[§-ra jurisdiction. 
The continuance of the fishing liberty was the great object of the 
article ; and the language of the article was accommodated to the 
severance of the jurisdictions, which was consummated by the 
same instrument. It was co-instantaneous with the severance of the 
jurisdiction itself; and was no more a grant from Great Britain, 
than the right acknowledged in the other part of the article ; or than 
the Independence of the United States, acknowledged in the first 
article. It was a continuance of possessions enjoyed before ; and 
at the same moment, and hy the same act, under which the United 
States acknowledged those coasts and shores as being under a fo- 
reign jurisdiction, Great Britain recognised the liberty of the peo- 
ple of the United States to use them for purposes connected with 
the fisheries. 

This also was the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, in 
which our title was recognised to the rights and liberties in the 
fisheries. They had all the qualities mentioned by the authors on 
the laws of nations, as appropriate to permanent and irrevocable 
acknowledgments : 

*' Who can doubt," says Vattel, " that the pearl fishery of Bah- 
*' rem and Ceylon, may not lawfully be enjoyed as property ? And 
*' though a fishery for food appear:; more inexhaustible, if a nation 
'< has a fishery on its coasts that is particularly advantageous, and 
*' of which it may become master, shall it not be permitted to ap- 
•' propriate this natural advantage to itself, as a dependence on the 
*' country it possesses ; and if there are a sufficient number of fish 
" to furnish the neighbouring nations, of reserving to itself the great 
" advantage it may receive from them by commerce ? But if, so 
*' far from taking possession of it, it has once acknowledged the com- 
" mon right of other nations to come and fish there, it can no longer 
" exclude them from it ; it has left that fishery in its primitive free- 
" dom, at least with respect to those who have been in possession of it. 
" The English not having taken the ad vantage yro7«, the beginning, 
" of the herring fishery on their coast, it is become common to them 
" with other nations." Fattel, b. ], ch. 23, §287. 

In the third article of the treaty of 1783, the liberties of the peo- 
ple of the (Jnited States in the fisheries within the British North 
American colonial jurisdiction were, in the most rigorous sense of 
the words, acknowledgedjfrom the beginning — for it was by the very 
same act, which constituted it, as to the United States, a foreign 
jurisdiction. 



189 

That this was the understanding of the article, by the British go- 
vernment as well as by the American negotiators, is apparent to 
demonstration, by the debates in Parliament upon the preliminary 
articles. It was made in both Houses one of the great objections 
to the treaty. In the House of Commons, lord North, the man who 
as minister in 1775, had brought in and carried through the act for 
depriving us of the tisherj'^, but who had now become a leader of the 
opposition, said : " By the third article, we have, in our spirit of 
" reci[)iocity, given the Americans an unlimited right to take fish 
" of every kind on the Great Bank, and on all the other Banks of 
" Neivfoundland. But this was not sufficient. We have also giveu 
" theiu the right of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all 
**' other places in the sea, where they have heretofore enjoyed, 
" [hron^li vs, the privilege of fishing. They have likewise the 
■' power of even partaking of the fishery which we still retain. 
" We have not been content with resigning what we possessed, but 
" even share what we have left. I'he United States have liberty 
" to fish on that part of the coa^t of Newfoundland which British 
'' fishermen sliuil use. All the reserve is, that they are not to dry 
" or cure the same on the island. By this grant they are at liberty 
'* to take our property, for which we have so long kept possession 
" of the island. This is certainly a striking instance of that liberal 
" equity which we find is the basis of the provisional treaty ! But 
*' where shall I find an instance of that reciprocity which is also set 
'• forth in the preamble ? We have given the Americana the unli- 
" mited privilege of fishing on ail the coasts, bays, and creeks, of 
" our American dominions. But where have they, under this 
" principle of reciprocity, given us the privilege of fishing on any 
" of their coasts, bays, or creeks ? I could wish such an article 
*' could be found, were it only to give a colour to this boasted reci- 
" procity. The advantage we should derive from such an article, 
*' carmot be a consideration ; for every real and positive advantage 
•' to Great Britain seems to have been entirely foreign to the intent 
" and meaning of this peace, in every particular ; otherwise I 
*' should have thought it would have been the care of administra- 
•^ tion not to have given without the least equivalent, that permis- 
*' sion which they could never demand as British subjects. I am 
•' at a loss to consider how we could grant, or they could claim it, 
.**-as a right, when they assuuied an independency which has sepa- 
^' rated them from our sovereignty." 

In this speech, the whole artiple is considered as an improvident 
eoncession of British property ; nor is there suggested the slight- 
est distinction in the nature of the grant between the right of fishing 
©n the banks, and the liberty of the fishery on the coasts. 

Still more explicit are the words of lord Loughborough, in the 
House of Peers : " The fishery, " says he, " on the shores retained 
'> by Britain, is in the next article, not ceded but recognised as a 
•• right inherent in the Americans, which though no longer British 

subirr*:?. thev are to continue to enjoy nmnolestcd, no right on the 

2-'i 



190 

<• other band being reserved to British subjects to approach their 
"■ shores, for the purpose of fishing, in this reciprocal treaty." 

In the replies of the ministerial members to these objections, 
there is not a word attempting to contradict them, or hinting at a 
distinction in the tenure of the title between the right and the li- 
berty. 

Such was the nature of the rights and liberties of the people of 
the United States in the fisheries, and such the peculiar character 
of the treaty of 1783, by which they had been recognised. The 
princij)le asserted by the American plenipotentiaries at Ghent ; dis- 
avowed and combated by Mr. Russell, in his letter of llth Febru- 
ary, 1815, and now treated by him as the dream of a visionary, 
was, that these rights and liberties, thus recognised, could not be 
forfeited by a war, and that no new stipulation was necessary to 
secure them. The whole fishery, as well without as within the 
special territorial jurisdiction, had been the common property of 
tlie British empire : so had been the whole territory to which it 
had been incidental. By the treaty of separation, the territory 
n-as divided, and two separate sovereign jurisdictions arose. The 
fishery bordered upon both. The jurisdictions were marked out 
by the boundary line agreed upon by the second article of the 
{reaty. The fishery was disposed of in the third article. As com- 
mon property, it was still to be held in common. As a possession^ 
it was to be held by the people of the United States, as it had been 
held before. It was not like the lands partitioned out by the same 
treaty, a corporeal possession, but in the technical language of the 
Eoo-lish law, an incorporeal hereditament, and in that of the civil 
Jaw, a right of mere faculty, consisting in the povj'er and liberty of 
exercising a trade, the places in which it is exercised being occu- 
pied onlv for the purposes of the trade. Now the right or liberty 
to enjoythis possession, or to exercise this trade, could no more be 
affected or impaired by a declaration of war. than the right to the 
territory of the nation. The interruption to the exercise of it dur- 
ing the war, could no more afftcf the right or liberty, than the oc- 
cupation by the enemy of territory could affect the right to that. 
The ri^ht to territory could be lost only by abandonment or renun- 
ciation in the treaty of peace ; by agreement to a new boundary 
iine, or by acquiescence in the occupation o-f the territory by the 
enemy. The fishery liberties could be lost, only by express re- 
nunciation of them in the treaty, or by acquiescence in the princi- 
ple that they were forfeited, which would have been a tacit renun- _ 
ciation. 

I hope it will not be deemed an assertion of infallibility, when I 
say, that I present this argument to my country, both as to the na- 
ture of our rights and liberties in the fisheries, and as to the pecu- 
liar character of the treaty by which they were recognised, with a 
perfect conviction that it cannot be answered. Bat if I am mistaken 
in that, sure I am, that it never has been answered, either by the 
British sovernment or by Mr. Russell. 



191 

If admitted, it leaves the question, whether the treaty of 1783 
was or was not abrogated by the late war ? a mere question of use- 
Jess speculation, or of national pride. That British statesoien and 
jurists should manifest some impatience, and seize upon any pr^^-text 
to cause that treaty to disappear from the archives of their national 
muniments, is not at all surprising. That an American statesman 
should partake of the same anxiety, is not so natural, though ii 
may be traced to the same system of public law, by which the com 
naerce and fisheries of the colonies, before the Revolution, were 
supposed to be held at the mere pleasure of the British crown. 
It is not necessary to deny that the treaty of 1783 was, as a national 
compact, abrogated by the late war, so long as with the assertion 
of its being so abrogated, is not coupled the assertion that any one 
right or liberty, acknowledged in it as belonging to the people of 
the United States, was abrogated with it. But when the British 
government or Mr. Russell assert that all the other rights and li 
berties acknowledged and secured to the United States by that 
treaty, survived its abrogation, except one poi'tion of the property 
in the lisheries, stipulated in one half of one article, I say there is 
nothing either in the nature of the liberty contested, or in the arti- 
cle by which it is recognised, that will warrant their distinction ; 
that the whole treaty was oue compact of irrevocable acknowledg- 
ments, consummated by the ratification ; and that the third article 
jn particular, adjusted the rights and liberties of the parties in and 
to one common property, of which neither party could e?er after- 
wards divest the other without his consent. 

When, therefore, the British government and Mr. Russell assert, 
that war abrogates all treaties, and every article of every treaty, 
they have yet proved nothing for their argument ; they must prO' 
ceed to affirm, that with the abrogation of the treaty by war, all the 
rights and liberties recognised in the treaty as belonging to either 
party, are likewise abrogated. And herein lies the fallacy of their 
argument. We ask them, was the acknowledgment of the Inde- 
pendence of the United States, in the first article of the treaty of 
1783, abrogated by the war of 1812 ? Yes, says Mr. Russell, but 
the Independence of the United States rested upon their own de- 
claration, and not upon the acknowledgment of Great Britain, With 
regard to all other nations, undoubtedly our Independence rests 
upon our own Declaration, for they never contested it. But Great 
Britain had waged a war of seven years against it, and it was by vir- 
tue of that article of the treaty alone, that she was bound to acknow- 
ledge our Independence. And this constituted one of the peculiar- 
ities of the treaty of 1703. Our treaty with France, of 1778, con- 
tained no article stipulating the acknowledgment of our Independ- 
ence. No such article was necessary with any nation which never 
had contes^ted it. But with Great Britain, it was the whole object 
of that treaty. All the other articles were merely arrangements ot 
detail and adjustments of consequences flowing from the recognition 
of the first article. If the acknowledgment of our Jndependeoce^ 



192 

in the first article of the treat)^ of 1783, w;is abrogated by the way 
of 1812, from the first hour of its declaration by Congress, (Irea?: 
Britain might have treated us as rebels^ as she had done tliroiiir;!) thf> 
whole war of the Revolution. 

Was the boundary line of the treaty of 1783 abrogated by tlic 
war of 1812 ? The American pleniijoteutiaries certainly did not 
so consider it, when they spoke of it in one of their notes, as the 
line '' as it now is." Nor did the British plenipotentiaries so consi- 
der it, when they demanded the express stipulation of another line, 
by the treaty then to be concluded. They claimed it, not because 
the boundary of the treaty of 1783 was abrogated, but l>y the right 
of conquest, as a cession of our territory ; and the demand was 
resisted on that ground. The articles in the treaty of Ghent, 
which refer to the boundary line, do not raie-<v or confirm the arti- 
cles of the treaty of 1783, which they recite. They refer to 
them, as reference is always made to treaties in full force, and 
merely add new stipulations for ascertaining the line described by 
them, according to the true intent and meaning of that treaty. 

If, then, none of the rights, liberties, or possessions, recognised 
by the first and second articles of the treaty of 1783, as belonging 
to the United States, were abrogated by the war of 1812, by what 
right, and upon what principle, could Mr. Russell consider the 
fishing liberty, recognised as belonging to them by the third article, 
to be entirely at an end, without a new stipulation for its revival. 
The whole of the third article, concerning the fisheries, was as 
much a recognition of pre-existing rights, liberties, and posses- 
sions, as the first and second articles. With regard to that identi- 
cal portion of the article, which Mr. Russell considers entirely at 
an end, the words of lord Loughborough, which I have cited, prove 
that it was universally considered, at the time when the treaty of 
1783 was made, as a recognition of existing rights, as much as all 
the rest. Mr. Russell says that the fishing liberty, within exclusive 
British jurisdiction, was not necessary to perfect the jurisdiction of 
the United States. What then ? It was not a perfection of juris- 
dictions, but a division of common property. The whole fishery 
had been the joint property of both parties. When the separation 
was to be consummated, it was agreed that that property should 
still be held in common ; that the people of the United States 
should continue to enjoy the right of exercising (he faculty upon 
the banks and open seas, and should have the lihcrtij of exercising 
it in the unsettled bays, creeks, and harbours, where they had be- 
fore exercised it as British subjects, but which were thenceforth to 
be within a foreign jurisdiction. There is nothing in the import of 
the term liberty, nothing in the limitations expressed in the article, 
Dothing in the principles of English law, or of the laws of nations 
applicable to rlsheries, which can warrant the pretension that this, 
more than the rest of the article, or than any other article in the 
treaty, was a grant of privilege, revocable at the pleasure of Great 
l^ritain, or forfeitable by war. fljr. Russell, in his letter, frec|uent- 



19,3 

}y substitutes the term privilege, for that of lihcrhj, which is the 
word used in the article, and the substitution is itself an indication 
of weakness in his argument. An eminent Enghsh writer marks 
the distinction between the meaning of these words, in the lollovv 
ing manner : 

" Liberty, in the general sense, is an unahcnable right, which 
'•■'■ belongs to man as a rational and responsible agent : it is not u 
" claim, for it is set above all question and all condition ; nor is it 
"•' a privilege, for it cannot be exclusively granted to one being, nor 
" unconditionally be taken away from another." 

Crabb's English Si/no7ii/mes — word right. 

Such is the purport of the word liberty, in its general sense ; 
and by the application of it in the third article of the treaty to the 
power which the Americans were to enjoy within the British juris- 
diction, to carry on the fishery, it is not to be presumed that the 
negotiators of the treaty mistook the word, or that they used it as 
in any manner synonymous with a privilege. 

Were it then true, as Mr. Russell asserts, that war dissolves all 
treaties, without exception, and that the treaty of 1783 was totally 
dissolved by the war of 1812, it would not follow that the fishing 
liberty within British jurisdiction, stipulated by the third article of 
the treaty, was abrogated with it. As a liberty existing before the 
war, the right to it could not be forfeited by war. The suspension 
of its exercise during the war, could no more affect the right, than 
the occupation of territory by the enemy could afl'ect the right to 
that. 

But the doctrine itself, that war dissolves all treaties, and every 
article of every treaty, without exception, is not correct. It has 
been very solemnly disclaimed by the United States, in the following 
terms of the 24th article of their first treaty with Prussia : 

" And it is declared, that neither the pretence that war dis* 
** solves all treaties, nor any other, whatever, shall be considered 
*' as annulling or suspending this and the next preceding article ; 
" but on the contrary, that the state of war, is precisely that for 
" which they are provided ; and during which (hey are to be as 
" sacredly observed as the most acknowledged articles in the law 
*' of nature or nations." 

Of this treat}', Dr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson were two of the 
negotiators on the part of the United States, and Frederick the se- 
cond was the sovereign with whom it was negotiated. It not only 
contradicts the doctrine that war dissolves all treaties, without ex- 
ception, but fixes a stigma upon it as a pretence usually resorted to 
for the purpose of disguising or of palliating a violation of good 
faith. 

The pretence that war dissolves all treaties, is itself a remnant of 
that doctrine of the barbarous ages, that faith is not to be kept with 
enemies, and that no compact made in war is obligatory. The mo- 
dern writers upon the laws of nations, have exploded this opinion, 



194 

and expressly laid it down, that all articles of a treaty made during 
war, or having in contemplation the state of war, as that in which 
they are to take efli'ect, remain in full force, and are not abrogated 
by war. This, therefore, constitutes a large class of articles of 
treaties which are not abrogated by war. Another class of arti- 
cles, equally privileged from such abrogation, are all executed stipu- 
lations — Cessions of territory, demarcations of boundary, acknow- 
ledgments of pre-existing ri^itsand liberties, belotig to this class — 
and in it are included the lirst, second, and third articles of the 
treaty of 1783. 

All articles which have been executed, may indeed be said to be 
abrogated by tl.e execution itself. The transaction between the 
parties is consummated. In the case of a cession of territory, when 
the possession of it has been delivered, the article of the treaty is 
no longer a compact between the parties, nor can a subsequent war 
between them operate in any manner upon it. 

So of all articles the purport of which is the acknowledgment b}*^ 
one party of a pre-existing right belonging to another. The en- 
gagement of the acknowledging party is consummated by the ratiti- 
cation of the treaty. It is no longer an executory contract; but a 
perfect right united with a vested possession, is thenceforth in one 
partv, and the acknowledgment of the other is in its own nature irre- 
vocable. As a bargain, the article is extinct ; but the right of the 
party in ivhose favour it was made, is complete, and cannot be af- 
fected by a subsequent war. 

A grant of a facultative right, or incorporeal hereditament, and 
specitically of a right of fishery, from one sovereign to another, is 
an article of the same description. It is analogous to a cession of 
territory, and is in fact a partial and qualified cession. The right 
is consummated by the ratification of the treaty. The possession 
is vested by the exercise of the faculty. Mere war between the 
parties, can neither impair the right of one party nor effect the re- 
vocation of the grant by the other. 

So that whether the third article of the treaty of 1783 be consi- 
dered as an acknowledgment of pre-existing liberties, or as a grant 
of them, to be exercised within British jurisdiction, it was in its 
natui'c permanent and irrevocable, liable, under no circumstances 
whatever, to be annulled by the will of Great Britain, and capable 
of being lost to the United States in no other manner than by their 
own express renunciation or tacit abandonment. 

I have already citerl a passage from Vattel, to show, that when a 
nation has once ackno'Ji-ledged the right of other nations to share in 
■ajishery within its territorial jurisdiction, it can never afterwards 
exclude them frcui it without their consent. What says he of grants 
by treaty ? 

" Treaties, wiiich do not relate to objects of reiterated occur- 
" rence, but to transitory, single acts, immediately consummated, 
" conventions, compacts, which are accomplished once for all, and 
•' not by successive acts, as soon as they have received their exe-^ 



195 

"■ culion, are things consummated and finished. If they are vahd, 
" they have in their nature an effect perpetual and irrevocable.— 
" In like manner, as soon as a right is transferred by a lawful con- 
" vention, it no longer belongs to the state which has ceded it : the 
" affairis finished and concluded." Fattel,b. 2, ch. 12, § 192. 

" But we must not here confound treaties or alliances, which, 
" bearing the obligation of reciprocal engagements, can subsist only 
" by the continued existence of the contracting powers, with those 
" contracts which give aji acquired and consummate right independ- 
'• etit of all mutual engagement. If, for example, a nation had 
"ceded in perpetuity to a neighbouring prince, the right of ftshery 
" in a river, or that of keeping a garrison in a fortress, this prince, 
" would not lose his rights, even if the nation from which he re- 
" ceived them, should afterwards be corKjuered or pass in any other 
" manner under a foreign dominion His rights depend not on the 
" continued existence of that nation : they had been alienated 
" by it, and the conqueror could take only that which belonged to 
'' itself." Felice — Commentarxj on Burlamuqui, Part 4,ch. 9, § 161. 
I trust I have now sufliciently shown, either that the treaty of 
1783 was of that class of treaties which are not abrogated by a 
subsequent war, between the parties to it, or that if it was so ab- 
rogated, not one particle of the rights or liberties, stipulated or re- 
cognised in it, as belonging to the United States, was or could be 
abrogated with it, and consequently — that the conclusion of Mr. 
Russell's elaborate argument, that the fishing liberty secured to 
the United States, by the third article, was entirely at an end, with- 
out a new stipidation for its revival, was as unwarranted by any 
principle of the laws of nations, as it was pernicious to the liber' 
ties of his country. Equally groundless and untenable, is the opi- 
nion that by ofl'ering the stipulation in another treaty, the peculia- 
rity of its character would be lost. The peculiarity consisted as 
well in the nature of the liberty, as in the character of the treaty 
by which it was secured, as was expressly asserted by the Ameri- 
can plenipotentiaries ; and the same principles would have applied 
to a new stipulation then, and do apply to the new stipulation since 
made, as did apply to the third article of the treaty of 1783. 
When Mr. Russell says that I appeal to a class of treaties which 
are not known to exist, he only proves that it would be well for 
him to revise his studies of diplomatic and international law. 

The doctrine that all treaties and all rights, acknowledged by 
articles of treaties, are dissolved by war, has not always been held 
to be sound even by the British government. In»the debates in 
parliament on the peace of Amiens, lord Auckland said — 

" He had looked into the works of all the first publicists on these 
"subjects, and had corrected himself in a mistake, stili prevalent 
*' in the minds of many, who state, in an unqualified sense, that all 
" treaties between nations are annulled by war, and must be spe- 
*' cially renewed if meant to he in force on the return of peace. It 



1,96 

*' is true, that treaties in the nature of compacts or concessions, 
" the enjoyment of which has been interrupted by the war, and 
" has not been renewed at the pacitication, are rendered null by 
" the war. But compacts not interrupted by the course and effect 
" of hostilities, such as the regulated exercise of ajiskcnj on the re- 
" spective coasts of the belligerent pozvers, the stipulated right of cut- 
" ting wood in a p;irticular district, or possessing rights of territory 
" heretofore ceded bij treaty, are certainly not destroyed or injured by 
" tear." 

And again : " It is not true that our non-renewal of the Dutch 
" treaties will liberate the ships and vessels of that republic frona 
•' the ancient practice of striking their flag to British ships of war, 

■ in the British seas. That practice did not depend on the treaty 
"of 1784, nor even on the treaty of Breda, in 1667. Those trea- 
" ties zoere only recognitions of an existing right. And the treaty of 

• 1667 expressly stated that the Dutch flag shall be struck in such 
■'manner as the same hath been formerly observed in anytime 

■ whatsoever. The same remark would be found applicable to the 
■'sixth article of the treaty of 178-1, by which the States General 
'• promised not to obstruct the navigation of the British subjects in 
■' the eastern seas. That article was no compact or grant ; it was 
" only an acknowledgment of a pre-existing and undoubted right ; 
"and was merely meant as a notice to our merchants that they 
■■ would not be disturbed in the exercise of that right." 

Lastly : '• lie had already stated the incontrovertible principle, 
" that treaties or con)pacts, the exercise of which is not interrupt- 
" ed by the coarse of the war, remain in full effect on the return 
" of peace. Our privileges in the Bay of Honduras had been given 
"in lieu of ancient and acknowledged rights in the Bay of Cam- 
" peachy. Those privileges havi'.ig been enjoyed without disturb- 
" ance during the war, are coniirmed and established. 

The earl of Carnarvon — a member of the opposition, said in the 
same debate : 

" It has been nearly admitted by ministers, that former treaties, 
" by the omission of renewal, are abrogated : my noble relation 
"(lord Grenville) does not go that length, but he thinks we have 
" lost our title deeds in most cases, and has affirmed, that we have 
" thereby totally lost the gum trade. I am far from thinking any 
" of these consequences follow simply from the tacit omission of 
" the renevvais. War does not abrogate any right, or interfere 
" with the right, though it does with the exercise, but such as it 
" professes to litigate by war. All the writers on the law of nations 
" distinctly athrm, that peace has only relation to the war which it- 
" terminates, leaving all the former relative situations of the two 
*' countries as before the war; and that former treaties, though not 
"expressly renewed, remain in full effect, if not expressly abro- 
"gated in the treaty of peace, or by private consent and acknow- 
"ledsment." 



1^1 

" The lord chancellor (Eldon) said that if by the omission of the 
*''■ mention of former treaties they were all to be considered as ab- 
" rogated, and if the public law of Enr®pe was thus altered, he 
■=' had no difficulty in saying that an address should be voted to his 
"majesty praying that he would dismiss his present ministers Irom 
" his councils forever. But he trusted that the fact was far other- 
" wise, and that the conduct of ministers deserved no such cen- 
" sure." 

And afterwards with regard to the right of cutting logwood in 
the Bay of Honduras : 

" Let it be held in mind, that Honduras became the rightful pro- 
■" perty of Great Britain by conquest, and was never ceded to 
" Spain, without an acknowledgment, on the part of the court of 
" Madrid, of our undoubted right to cut logwood. In proportion 
*' as the right of conquest was paramount to the effect of treaties,, 
" in which that right was not specifically abandoned and resigned, 
" our right to cut logwood in the Bay of Honduras remained more 
" secure and free from challenge than it could have done if it had 
" been mentioned in the definitive treaty." 

And in the debate in the House of Commons, speaking of this 
same right of cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras, lord Hawkes^- 
bury (the present earl of Liverpool) said, 

" The fact is, that right was ceded to us by the Spaniards in 
' 1787, in return for some lands that we gave them on the Mus- 
" quito Shore ; therefore it is a settlement which we possess of 
" right, and to which the Spaniards were as much bound to refev 
*' in the treaty as we were ; it was, in truth, on our part no omis- 
" sion." Hansarcfs Parliamentary History, vol. 3G, A. D. 18Q2. 

The doctrine of the non-abrogation even oi commercial treaties, by 
war, has been maintained by British statesmen and lawyers on 
many occasions. They have sometimes carried it further than 
those of other nations have been ready to admit. Thus in the de- 
bate of the House of Commons on the definitive treaty of peace of 
1783, between France, Spain, and Great Britain, Mr. Fox, al- 
luding to the renewal in that treaty of the treaty of Utrecht ; and 
to the period of two years from the 1st of January, 1784, fixed for 
the negotiation of a treaty of commerce, said : " Pending the nego- 
" tiation, it was reasonable to suppose the three nations would, in 
"commercial transactions, be bound by the treaty of Utrecht : and 
" this he imagined was the sense of the British ministers. But sup- 
*' posing the tw^o years should expire before the new commercial 
" arrangements should take place, a question would naturally arise, 
" what would, in this case, become of the treaty of Utrecht ? For 
" his part, he v>as of opinion that the treaty of Utrecht would, m such 
" a case, still remainin full force ; but he knew, on the other hand, 
"that this had not been the opinion of the courts of Madrid, and 
■' Versailles, the ministers of which contended, that if the negotia- 
'.' tion? should end ^vifbont producing any new commercial arrange- 



■' merits, the treaty of Utrecht would, in that case, be completely 
" annulled." Hansard's Parliamentary History, vol. 23, p. 1147. 

In the year 1686, a treaty was concluded between Louis the 14th 
and James the second, regulating the commercial intercourse be- 
hveen the respective subjects and possessions of France and Great 
Britain m America. It was known by the denomination of the 
Treaty of Neutrality. Two years after its conclusion, occurred the 
revolution by which James was expelled from the British throne, 
and a war between the two nations, which terminated in 1695, by 
the peace of Ryswick. At the commencement of the next cen- 
tury, broke out the war of the Spanish succession, which, after 
raging twelve years, closed in 1714, by the treaty of Utrecht. The 
treaty of neutrality had not been specilically renewed or named, 
either by the treaty of Ryswick or by that of Utrecht : yet on the 
3d of June, 1728, the attorney and solicitor general, Yorke and 
Talbot, gave their official opinion that the treaty of neutrality was 
f?till in force, and instructions, founded upon its validity, were given 
to the governors of the British colonies in America. 

In 1741, commenced the war of the Pragmatic Sanction, or forthe 
Austrian succession, which finished in 1748, by the peace of Aix 
la Chapelle — five years after which, the attorney and solicitor gen- 
eral, sir Dudley Ryder, and Murray, afterwards lord fliansiield, 
gave it as their official opinion that the treaty of neutrality of 1686^ 
was then yet in force. 

The same question occurred in 1765, after the close of the se- 
ven years' war, when the attorney and solicitor general, Norton and 
De Grey, gave it as their opinion that the treaty of neutrality was 
not then in force ; but the advocate general, sir James Marriott^ 
gave it as his opinion that it was, and supported his opinion by an 
elaborate, ingenious, and forcible argument. 

These opinions are all to be found in the second volume of Chal- 
mers's Collection of Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, pp. 339 — 355 ; 
and as the result of the whole, Chitty, in his Treatise on the Laws 
of Commerce and Manufactures, a work published in 1820, says ; 
" It has been considered that a general commercial treaty, not lim- 
^' ited by its terms to a particular time, is only suspended by a war, 
" and, that upon the return of peace, it will tacitly revive, by 
" implication, unless there be an express declaration to the con- 
" trary." Chitty, p. 45.* 

By the concurrent testimony, therefore of the writers upon the 
laws of nations, and of the most eminent British statesmen and 
lawyers of the present age, the general position that war abrogates 
all treaties, and the particular inference from it, that by the abro- 
gation of treaties, the rights or liberties stipulated in them are con 

* For the references to these British authorities, relative to tlie effect oi war. 
upon treaties, and treaty stipulations, I have to acknowledge my obligations 
to a learned and ingenious friend, a member of the Senate nf the Lnitea 
J^tatcs, 



199 

^equcnlly discontinued, are both utterly destitute of foundation. I 
have been the more anxiously earnest in the developement of this 
demonstration, because the error of Mr. Russell, both as to the 
principle and its consequence, is by no means confined to him. In 
the above extracts it will appear, that it was entertained by lord 
Auckland himself, until called upon in the deliberations upon the 
peace of Amiens, to examine thoroughly the doctrines of the wri- 
ters on the laws of nations relating to the subject. Be the opinion 
of Mr. Russell what it may, the portion of the fisheries to which 
we are entitled, even within the British territorial jurisdiction, is 
of great importance to this Union. To New-England it is among 
the most valuable of earthly possessions. But the whole fishery 
of the Barks, and in the adjoining seas, is at stake, upon the prin- 
ciples of Mr. Russell : by his doctrine we now hold it at the breath 
of Great Britain ; for, by a declaration of war, she can extinguish 
it forever. The foundations of the Union itself are shaken by 
this opinion. If the fisheries of New-England are held at the 
pleasure of Great Britain, one of the main purposes of the Union 
to the people of New-England is taken away. So long as Great 
Britain holds a preponderating power upon the ocean, whenever 
a war between her and the United States may occur, this great 
interest of New-England will be the first to suffer, and in the most 
distressing manner. K, besides the endurance of this peculiar hard- 
ship which is unavoidable, New-England is to be told that her liber- 
ties in the fisheries themselves, are nothing but voluntary donations 
of Great Britain, which she has a right to resume, on the first firing 
of a gun, the, vital interests of New-England are not on the same foot- 
ing of protection, by the Union, as those of its other portions. In the 
relative proportions of power and influence between the different 
sections of the country, New-England will behold, without envy 
and without regret, her sisters of the South and of the West, rising 
to pre-eminence in wealth, population, and resources over herself. 
But never again let her be told, and least of all by one of her own 
sons, that her rights, her liberties, or her possessions, are of trifling 
or insignificant value to the nation, and that at the first sound of a 
hostile trumpet they will be abandoned to the mercy of the com- 
mon enemy ; or surrendered to the desperate chance of a repur- 
chase for an equiv.ilent ii'herever it may be found. 

In my remarks on Mr. Russell's letter, 1 expressed the hope, 
that from the whole history of this transaction, the statesmen of this 
Union would take warning through all future time, in their conflicts 
with foreign powers never to consider any of the liberties of this 
Diition as abrogated by a war, or capable of being extinguished by 
any other agency than qpr own express renunciation. Mr. Russell 
tukes. alarm at this lest the implicit renunciation by the British ot 
tlie right to navigate the Mississippi should not be sufficient — and 
he says, that according to me, that right is unimpaired. Mr. Rus- 
seU's conclusion, as usual, is broader tlian his premises. He might 
imve seen that the object of my remark vviig to give warning to the 



200 

. itatesmeu ol this Union, never to permit or abet the extinguish- 
ment of any of our Hberties, by abandonment or surrender, which 
would be tacit renunciation. It was no purpose of mine (o say that 
our liberties could not be so extinguished. On the contrary, it was 
precisely because after the notification of the British plenipoten- 
tiaries on the 9th of August, 1814, our fishing liberties would have 
been tacitly renounced, had we quietly acquiesced in it, that I deem- 
ed the counter notification in the note of 10th November, or a new 
stipulation in the treaty indispensable to save those liberties from 
extinction. It was precisely because Mr. Russell had not only 
been prepared to surrender them, but so eager to prove Uiem al- 
ready extinct, that I thought it necessary to give this warning to the 
statesmen of my country, never hereafter to follow his example, 
it was that counter notification, which saved our liberties (and our 
rights too) in the fisheries. Had the negotiation with Great Bri- 
tain since the peace, been for the repurchase of liberties acknow- 
ledged by ourselves to be extinct, a very different equivalent must 
have been given for them, from the naked right of navigating the Mis- 
sissippi. The liberties of this Union will never be capable of being 
extinguished otherwise than by express renunciation, so long as the 
public servants to whom the defence and protection of them may 
be committed, are duly determined never to surrender them by im- 
plication. The incapacity of surrender is not in the liberty itself, 
but in the soul of its defenders. 

As to the right of the British to the navigation of the Mississippi, 
they have not only renounced it, by their concurrence with Mr. 
Russell that the treaty of 1783 was abrogated by the war, but by 
stipulating a new boundary line, which cuts them off from all claim 
to territory upon the river, without reserving the right to its navi- 
gation. They have abandoned both the grounds of their claim to 
it — territorial contiguity and treaty stipulation ; and an eifectual 
guard against it, more effectual indeed than any renunciation, is that 
vv'hile they have no territory upon its borders, they never can have 
any mterest in reviving it. Their very advancing any claim to it 
at Ghent, was an inconsistency with their doctrine that the treaty of 
1783 was abrogated by the war, and as they really had no interest 
worth a straw in the claim, they finally abandoned it, to i-edeem 
their consistency. They, like Mr. Russell, were wilhng enough to 
adopt one principle tor operation upon their own claims and its op- 
posite principle, to affect the claims of their adversary ; but as the 
object of their claim was of no real value, they finally preferred to 
abandon their claim, ■ijather than formally to renounce their doc- 
trine. 

But there is one object which to Mr. Russell, as a member of 
Congress, seems to present matter for very serious consideration. 
If the navigation downwards of the Mississippi, by British subjects, 
with merchandise on which the duties have been paid, and subject 
to all the custom-house regulations, is a power of such tremendous 
«:onse(}ueiice to the Union, and especially to the unoffending inha- 



201 

bitants of the Western Country ; if it surrenders them all toBrilisli 
smugglers, British emissaries, and the tomahawk of the Indian sa- 
vage, why has it never been prohibited by law ? How has the arm 
of the Union been palsied? Why has the guardian and protecting 
power of the national government so long slumbered ? There was 
nothing proposed to be stipulated by the offer made to the British 
plenipotentiaries on the first of December, 1814, which British sub- 
jects do not at this hour possess, and have never ceased to enjoy, 
without any stipulation whatsoever. By the act of Congress admitting 
the State of Louisiana into the Union, it is provided " that it shall be 
" taken as a condition upon which the said State is incorporated in 
" the Union, that the river Mississippi, and the navigable rivers and 
" waters leading into the same, and into the Gulf of Mexico, shall be 
'' common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of 
'•' said State as to the inhabitants of other States, and the territories 
" of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll, there- 
" for, imposed by the said State." That which is a common high- 
way, free to all the citizens of the United States, by this act, and by 
the constitution of the State of Louisiana, is in point of fact equally 
free to all foreigners at peace with the United States, and conse- 
quently to British subjects. It can be prohibited only by law, and 
no such law is in existence. 

It will be observed that the right of navigation offered by Mr„ 
Gallatin's proposal, was only that of descending the river, from its 
source to fhe ocean. It did not bind us to admit them to a right of 
ascending the river, from the sea, or to allow their vessels to pass 
above the first port of entry in the river. 

It remains only to be shown, that the estimates of Mr. Russell, 
with regard to the value of the fishing liberties, are as erroneous, as 
his opinions with regard to our title to them are incorrect. 



202 



///. Fishing Liberties — their Value, 

Of all the errors in Mr. Russell's letter of 1 1th February, i816, 
io the Secretary of State, there is none more extraordinary in its 
character, or niore pernicious in its tendency, than the disparaging 
estimate which he holds forth of the value of the liberties in the 
fisheries, secured by the treaty of 1783, and, as he would maintain, 
extinguished, by the war of 1312. Not satisfied with maintaining 
in the face of his own signatures at Ghent, the doctrine that all right 
to them had been irredeemably extinguished by the war ; not con- 
tented with the devotion of all his learning and all his ingenuity, to 
take from his country the last and only support of right upon which 
this great interest had, by himself and his colleagues, been left at 
the conclusion of the peace to depend ; not ashamed of urging the 
total abandonment of a claim, at that very time in litigation, and of 
which he was himself one of the official defenders, he has exiiausted 
his powers, active and meditative, in the effort to depreciate the 
value of those possessions, which, while committed to his charge, 
he was so surprisingly intent upon relinquishing forever. 

His first attempt in this patriotic career, is to represent this in- 
terest as a merely sectional and very trifling concern, brought in 
conflict at Ghent with another but a much greater and deeper inte- 
rest of a di3"erent section of the Union. 

His next endeavour is to represent it as an exclusive interest of a 
few individuals, the mere accommodation of a few fishermen, annu- 
ally decreasing in number. 

And, finally, he degrades the value of the object itself, by affirm- 
ing that the fogs in the high northern latitudes prevented the effectual 
curing of the fish, and that this liberty was totally unnecessary to us 
for subsistence or occupation, and afforded in no way, (in the du- 
plicate he says in no honest way,) any commercial facility or political 
advantage. 

It is scarcely possible to render a greater disservice to t}ie|teo- 
ple of this Union, than in their controversies with foreign po^Wrs, 
to array the interests of one section of the Union against those of 
another. On no occasion can this be so dangerous as when the 
power, with whom the negotiation is held, has the purpose of wrest- 
ing from us the enjoyment of such a possession, the immediate in- 
terest of which is confined to one section ; and 1 confidently affirm, 
that never since the existence of the United States as an independ- 
ent nation, has there been an emergency upon which there was less 
reason for flinging into the discussion this torch of dissension, than 
at the negotiation of Ghent. The aim of the enemy was at the fish- 
eries. His object was to deprive us of them. The American ple- 
nipotentiaries were instructed not to surrender them. What more 
could the enemy desire, than to excite within the American mission 
itself, a sectional interest adverse to that of the fisheries ? He did 
so ; and so far as Mr. Russell dared to indulge his disposition, most 



203 

successfully. Had Mr. Russell been in the mission of Great Bri- 
tain instead of that of the United States, he could not have perform- 
ed a more zealous and acceptable service, than by maintaining the 
doctrines of his letter of lllh February, 1815. As to the object 
at issue, it was their argument that he urged. As to the spirit he 
excited, it was their interest he was promoting. Excellent indeed 
would have been the account to which they would have turned 
their right of navigating the Mississippi, if, at the very moment while 
they disclaimed it, they could have obtained for its renunciation, 
that of these United States to their fishing liberties. Besides the 
immense disproportion of what they would have gained by the ex- 
';hange, they would have planted in tlie heart of the Union, a root 
of bitterness which never could have been plucked up but with 
its blood. Had the fisheries been surrendered — when the people 
of New-England came to inquire where were their liberties in 
them, and how they had been lost ? what would their feelings have 
been to be told — they were lost, that we might gain the right of for- 
bidding British subjects from descending the Mississippi river in 
boats ? With what human endurance would they have heard it said, 
We have lost nothing, upon the whole. You, indeed, have lost 
your fisheries — but tee have acquired the right of interdicting all 
Englishmen from travelling a highway in the Western Country. — 
U was not in the power of man to devise an expedient better suited 
to detach the affections of the people of New-England from the 
Union, or to till their bosoms with heart-burning and jealousy 
against the people of the West. 

I have already shown that the importance which Mr. Russell 
strains to the utmost a!l his faculties to give to this British right of 
navigating the Mississippi, is oil founded upon a mis-statement of 
what it was. He begins by saying that it would be absurd to sup- 
pose that the article meant no more than what it expressly purport- 
ed to mean ; and then he infers that it would have been understood 
to mean the same thing as the third article of the treaty of 1794 ; 
and as the free access, both of intercourse and of trade with the In- 
dians within our territories, which that had given to the British, had 
caused inconveniences to us, which had been mentioned in the in- 
structions of 15th April, 1813, he infers that all the same evils 
would have flowed from the continuance of their right to navigate 
the Mississippi. No such inference could have been drawn from 
the article. The article was precisely what it purported to be, and 
no more ; and if, under colour of it, British subjects had ever at' 
tempted to give it a greater extension, it would always have been 
entirely in the power of the American government to control them. 

It is the first common-place of false and sophistical reason- 
ing, to mis-stale the question in discussion ; and Mr. Russell, after 
making this, without reason or necessity, a question of one sectional 
interest against another, changes the nature of the question itself, 
for the double purpose of n!ai;nifying the Western, and of diminish- 



204 

ing the Eastern interest, which be has brought in conflict with each 
other. 

I have shown that the proposal actually made to the British ple- 
nipotentiaries, was, by the admission of Mr. Russell himself, so 
worthless, that it was nothing that they could accept ; as in fact it 
was not accepted by them. Let us now see what was the value of 
this fishery ; this ''doubtful accommodation of a few fishermen, 
annually decreasing in number." 

From the tables in Dr. Seybert's Statistical Annals, it will be 
seen that in the year 1807, there were upwards of seventy thou- 
sand tons of shipping employed in the cod fishery alone ; and that 
in that and the four preceding years, the exports from the United 
States of the proceeds of the fisheries, averaged three millions of 
dollars a year. There was indeed a great diminution during the 
years subsequent to 1807, till the close of the war — certainly not 
voluntary, but occasioned by the state of our maritime relations 
with Europe, by our own restrictive system, and finally by the 
war. But no sooner was that terminated, than the fisheries reviv- 
ed, and in the year 1816, the year after Mr. Russell's letter was 
written, there were again upwards of sixty-eight thousand tons, 
employed in the cod fishery alone. From Dr. Seybert's state- 
ments, it appears further, that in this occupation the average of sea- 
men employed is of about one man to every seven tons of shipping, 
so that these vessels were navigated by ten thousand, of the har- 
diest, most skilful, soberest, and best mariners in the world. — 
" Every person (says Dr. Seybert,) on board our fishing vessels, 
" has an interest in common with his associates ; their reward de- 
" pends upon their industry and enterprise. Much caution is ob- 
•' served in the selection of the crews of our fishing vessels : it often 
" happens that every individual is connected by blood, and the 
" strongest ties of friendship. Our fishermen are remarkable for 
" their sobriety and good conduct, and they rank with the most 
" skilful navigators," 

Of these ten thousand men, and of their wives and children, the 
cod fisheries, if 1 may be allowed the expression, were the daily 
bread — their property — their subsistence. To how many thou- 
sands more were the labours and the dangers of their lives subser- 
vient ? Their game was not only food and raiment to themselves, 
but to millions of other human beings. 

There is something in the very occupation of fishermen, not 
only beneficent in itself but noble and exalted in the qualities of 
which it requires the habitual exercise. In common with the cul- 
tivators of the soil, their labours contribute to the subsistence of 
mankind, and they have the merit of continual exposure to danger, 
superadded to that of unceasing toil. Industry, frugality, patience, 
perseverance, fortitude, intrepidity, souls inured to perpetual con- 
flict with the elements, and bodies steeled with unremitting action, 
ever grappling with danger, and familiar with de.ath : these are 
the properties to which the fisherman of the ocean is formed by 



205 

the daily labours of his life. These are the propertiea for which 
he who knew what was in man, the Saviour of mankind, sought 
his first, "and found his most faithful, ardent, and undaunted disci- 
ples among the fishermen of his country. In the deadliest rancours 
of national wars, the examples of latter ages have been frequent 
of exempting, by the common consent of the most exasperated ene- 
mies, fishermen from the operation of hostilities. In our treaties 
with Prussia, they are expressly included among the classes of men 
"■whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of 
mankind;" with a stipulation, that in the event of war between 
the parties, they shall be allowed to continue their employment 
without molestation. Nor is their devotion to their country less 
conspicuous than their usefulness to their kind. While the hunts- 
man of the ocean, far from his native land, from his family, and 
his fire-side, pursues at the constant hazard of life, his game upon 
the bosom of the deep, the desire of his heart, is by the nature of 
his situation ever intently turned towards his home, his children^ 
and his country. To be lost to them gives their keenest edge to his 
fears ; to return with the fruits of his labours to them is the object of 
all his hopes. By no men upon earth have these qualities and disposi- 
tions been more constantly exemplified than by the fishermen of 
New-England. From the proceeds of their '' perilous and hardy 
industry," the value of three millions of dollars a year, for five 
years preceding 1808, was added to the exports of the United 
State's. This was so much of national wealth created by the fish- 
ery. With what branch of the whole body of our commerce was 
this interest unconnected ? Into what artery or vein of our politi- 
cal body did it not circulate wholesome blood ? To what sinew of 
our national arm did it not impart firmness and energy ? We are 
told they were "annually decreasing in number :" Yes ! they had 
lost their occupation by the war ; and Vifhere were they during the 
war ? They were upon the ocean and upon the lakes, fighting the 
battles of their country. Turn back to the records of your revo- 
lution — ask Samuel Tucker, himself one of the number ; a living 
example of the character common to them all, what were the fish- 
ermen of New-England, in the tug of war for Independence ? Ap- 
peal to the heroes of all our naval wars — ask the vanquishers of 
Alo'iers and Tripoli — ask the redeemers of your citizens from the 
chains of servitude, and of your nation from the humiliation of 
annual tribute to the barbarians of Africa — call on the champions 
of our last struggles with Britain — ask Hull, and Bainbridge, ask 
Stewart, Porter, andMacdonough, what proportion of Nen-P^ngland. 
fishermen were the companions of their victories, and sealed the 
proudest of our triumphs with their blood ; and then listen if you 
can, to be told, that the unqff'cnding citi^iens of the West Avere not 
at all beheiited by the fishing privilege, and that the few fisher- 
men in a remote quarter, were entirely exempt from the danger. 

But we are told also that '* by fir the greatest part of the fish 
taken bv our fishermen before the present war. was caught in thf 

1k'^ 



2136 

open sea, or upon our own coasts, and cured on our own shores.'' 
This assertion is, like the rest, erroneous. 

The shore fishery is carried on in vessels of less than twenty tons 
burthen, the proportion of which, as appears by Seybert's Statisti- 
cal Annals, is about one seventh of the whole. With regard to 
the comparative value of the Bank, and Labrador fisheries, I sub- 
join hereto, information collected from several persons, acquainted 
with them, as their statements themselves will show in their mi- 
nutest details. 

At an early period of the negotiation, I had been satisfied, that 
the British plenipotentiaries would not accept the renewal of the 
8th article of the treaty of 1783, (the IHississippi navigation) as an 
equivalent for the renewal of the third, (the fisheries.) In the 
correspondence which followed their notification at the first con? 
ference, that their government did not intend to grant the former 
fishing liberties without an equivalent, they had even dropped 
their claim for an article renewing their right of navigating the 
Mississippi, until we met their pretension that the fisheries had 
been forfeited by the war, which we first did in our note of the 10th 
of November, 1814. The principle upon which I had always re- 
lied, was, that the rights and liberties recognised in the 3d article 
of the treaty of 1783, had not been abrogated by the war, and 
would remain in full force after the peace, unless we should re- 
nounce them expressly by an article in the treaty, or tacitly by 
acquiescing in the principle asserted by the British plenipotentia- 
ries. There was a period during the negotiations, when it was 
probable they might be suspended, until the American commis- 
sioners could receive new instructions from their government. 
After the peace was signed I was aware that the question relating 
to the fisheries, must become a subject of discussion with the Bri- 
tish government ; and I had been previously informed by the Se- 
cretary of State, that if the negotiation should result in the con- 
clusion of peace, it was the President's intention to nominate me 
for the subsequent mission to Great Britain. I felt it, therefore, 
to be peculiarly my duty to seek the best information that I could 
obtain, in relation both to the rights and liberties in the fisheries, 
as recognised in the treaty of 1783, and to their value. The fol- 
lowing are extracts of two letters written by me from Ghent, to one 
of the negotiators of the treaty of 1783. By attending to the dates 
it will be seen, that the first of them was written three days before 
the first proposal by Mr. Gallatin, of the article relating to the 
Mississippi and the fisheries, and the second, two days after the 
signature of the peace. 

Ghent, 27th October, I8l4. 

" My dear sir : The situation in whieh I am placed, often brings 

to my mind that in which you were situated in the year 1782, and 

I will not describe the feelings with which the comparison, or I 

might rather say, the contrast utTects me. I am called to support 



207 

the same interests, and in many respects the same identical points 
and questions. The causes in which the present war originated, 
and for which it was on our part waged, wiJi scarcely form the most 
insigniticant item in the negotiation for peace. It is not impress- 
ment and unalienable allegiance, blockades and orders in council, 
colonial trade and maritime rights, or belligerent and neutral colli- 
sions of any kind that form the subjects of our discussion. It is the 
boundary, the fisheries, and the Indian savages. 

" It is nothing extraordinary but a strong evidence of the _real 
character of the contest in which we are engaged, that the most 
offensive and inadmissible of the British demands are pointed 
against the State of Massachusetts. It is a part of her territory 
of which they require the cession, and it is the fisheries of her 
citizens which they declare themselves determined no longer to 
allow. It is not the general right to the fisheries which they con- 
test, but the liberty of fishing and of drying fish within their juris- 
diction, stipulated in the 3d article of the peace of 1783. For my 
own part, I consider the whole article as containing parts of the 
general acknowledgment of our Independence, and therefore, as 
needing no renewal by any future treaty. But as the subject will 
certainly come under the consideration of the government of the 
United States, they will have time to give instructions founded upon 
their view of it, before any peace can be concluded. There is no 
doubt, whenever the negotiation is resumed, that this point will be- 
come again a subject for discussion. If there is among your papers 
relating to the negotiations of peace in 1782 and 1783, any infor- 
mation tending to elucidate the third article of those treaties which 
you can communicate to me, it may perhaps serve a valuable pur- 
pose to the public. And as this letter contains more than I should 
at this moment think myself warranted to communicate even to 
you, but for the particular motive which occasions it, I must re- 
quest of you to consider it as entirely confidential. 

" Ghent, 26ih December, 1814. 
*' My dear sir : I transmited by Mr. Hughes a duplicate of my last 
better to you, dated 27th October, which 1 siill entreat you to an- 
swer, if lam destined to a longer continuance in Europe, and upon 
which I ask all the advice and information which it may be in your 
power to bestow. It relates principally to the subject of the great- 
est difficulty we have had in the negotiation, and that, which of all 
others, is left in the state the most unsatisfactory to us and particu- 
larly to me. It has been now for a full month ascertained, that 
unless new pretensions on the part of Great Britain were advanced, 
a treaty of peace would be signed ; but it was not until last Thurs- 
day that I ceased to doubt whether it would receive my signature. 
The British plenipotentiaries had declared to us at the outset of 
the negotiation, that it was not the intention of the British govern- 
ment to grant to the people of the United States in future the 1j- 
herties of fishing, and drying, and curing fish within the ex'lusivi- 



208 

British jurisdiction zviihoid an equivalent. There is, as you muct 
remember, in the third article of -the treaty of 1783, a diversity of 
expression by which tlie general fisheries on the Banks are ac- 
knowledged as our right, but these fishing privileges within the 
British jurisdiction, are termed liberties. The British govern- 
ment consider the latter as franchises forfeited ipso facto by the 
war, and declared they would not grant them anew without an equi- 
valent. Aware that by this principle they, too, had forfeited their 
right to navigate the Mississippi, recognised in the same treaty of 
1783, they now demanded anew provision to secure it to them again. 

" We were instructed not to suffer our right to the fisheries to be 
brought into discussion ; we had no authority to admit any discri- 
mination between the first and the last parts of the third article of 
the treaty of 1783. No power to ofl'er or agree to an equivalent 
either for the rights or the liberties. I considered both as stand- 
ing on the same footing : both as the continuance of franchises al- 
ways ebjoyed, and the difference in the expressions only as arising 
from the operation of our change from the condition of British 
subjects to that of a sovereign people, upon an object in one part of 
general, and in the other of special, jurisdiction. The special ju- 
risdiction had been that of our own sovereign : by the revolution 
and the treaty of peace, it became a foreign, but still remained n 
-special, jurisdiction. By the very same instrument in which wc 
thus acknowledged it as a foreign junsdiction, we reserved to our- 
selves with the full assent of its sovereign, and without any limitation 
of time or of events, the franchise which we had always enjoyed 
while the jurisdiction had been our own. 

" It was termed a liberty because it was a freedom to be enjoyed 
within a special jurisdiction ; the fisheries on the Banks were 
termed rights because they were to be enjoyed on the ocean, the, 
common jurisdiption of all nations ; but there was nothing in the 
terms themselves and nothing in the article or in the treaty imply- 
ing an intention or expectation of either of the contracting parties, 
that one, more than the other, should be liable to forfeiture by a 
subsequent war. On the maturest deliberation I still hold this ar 
gument to be sound, and it is to my mind the only one by which 
our claim to the fisheries within British jurisdiction can be main- 
tained. But after the declaration made by the British government, 
it was not to be expected that they would be converted to this 
opinion without much discussion, which was forbidden to us, and 
the result of this must have been very doubtful upon minds at al! 
times inclined, and at this time most peculiarly prone, rather to 
lean upon power than to listen to reason. We stated the general 
principle in one of our notes to the British plenipotentiaries, as 
the ground upon which our government deemed no new stipulation 
necessary to secure the enjoyment of all our rights and liberties 
in the fisheries. They did not answer that part of our note; but 
when they came to ask a stipulation for the right of British subjects 



209 

10 navigate the Mississippi, we objected, that by our censtruction 
of the treaty of 1783, it was unnecessary. If we admitted their 
construction of that treaty, so as to give them a new right to the 
navigation, they must give us an equivalent for it. We offered 
an article recognising the continuance of the rights on both sides ; 
this offer met, however, with very great opposition among our- 
selves — for there were two of us against making it, and who thought 
the navigation of the Mississippi incomparably more valuable than 
the contested part of the fisheries. Not so did the British govern- 
ment think ; for they, instead of accepting it, offered us an article 
stipulating to negotiate hereafter for an equivalent to be given by- 
Great Britain for the right of navigating the Mississippi, and by the 
United States for the liberties of the fisheries within British juris- 
diction. This was merely to obtain from us the formal admission 
that both the rights were abrogated by the war. To that admission 
I was determined not to subscribe. The article was withdrawn 
];ist Thursday by the British plenipotentiaries, who accepted our 
proposal to say nothing in the treaty about either, and to omit the 
ailicle by which they had agreed that our boundary west from the 
Lake of the Woods should be the 49th parallel of north latitude. 
They at the same time referred again to their original declaration, 
that the fisheries within British jurisdiction would not hereafter be 
granted without an equivalent. It is evident that it must be the 
subject of a future negotiation. The only thing possible to be done 
now, was to preserve our whole claim unimpaired, and with that I 
consented to sign the treaty. •= 

" As a citizen of Massachusetts, I felt it to be most peculiarly my 
duty not to abandon any one of her rights, and I would have refused 
to sign the treaty had any one of them been abandoned : but it was 
impossible to force a stipulation in favour of the fisheries ; and for 
a temporary possession of Moose Island, merely until it shall be as- 
certained whether it belongs to her or not, we could not think of 
continuing the war. 

" My colleagues propose to leave Europe about the first of 
April, in the Neptune, which is waiting for them at Brest. I have 
great satisfaction in saying, that our harmony has been as great and 
constant, as perhaps ever existed between five persons' employed 
togetlier upon so important a trust. Upon almost all the important 
questions, we haVe been unanimous. J. Q. j^/» 

The information requested in these letters was collected, and 
Uansmitted to me, and received at London in the summer of 1815. 
The material |»arts of it are contained in the following papers, the 
first of which is from a letter of James Lloyd, Esq. to my corres- 
pondent, and is now published with Mr. Lloyd's permission. It 
was written in consequence of the communication to him of the 
above letter from me, and, as will be seen by its date, within-four 
n-geks after that of Mr. Russell's letter to Mr. Monroe from Paris. 



210 

" Boston, 8th March, 181 J. 

" Sir : In a former note, returning the letter with which you 
had so obhgingly favoured me, I had the honour to offer you my 
congratulations on the termination of the war, without waiting to 
know what were the grounds of the treaty which concluded it ; 
because, from the tenor of the previous correspondence, and my 
personal knowledge of nearly all the commissioners, 1 felt a reli- 
ance that the arrangement would not be a dishonourable, although 
I acknowledge my rejoicing was mingled with fear least it should 
be, at least in some points, a disadvantageous, one ; and this expres- 
sion of feeling I volunteered with the more readiness, as the intelli- 
gence was received at a moment when the national character had 
been splendidly illustrated by the recent achievement at New- 
Orleans. 

" But I greeted the occurrence with smiles, principally not be- 
cause I expected it would bring or restore to us all the benefits we 
possessed under former treaties, but because I saw no chance, but 
from this source, of happier prospects for the future. It was not, 
however, the storm that howled along the lakes, or upon the sea- 
board, that created the apprehension of an instant for the fate of the 
contest, but it was the hidden fire that was rumbling within our own 
bosoms, and which, under the continuance of the war, would, I be- 
lieve, have made our country the theatre of domestic convulsions, 
as well as of foreign warfare, and perhaps from its effects have of- 
fered up some parts of it as no very difficult prey to the mercy of 
the enemy. 

" On this head, I know, sir, you had better hopes, and thought 
differently from me ; and I have now only to say, I am glad the ex- 
periment has never come to issue. 

" As the price of the purchase of an escape from evils portentous 
as these, I considered it as probable that the English government 
might claim from us the contested eastern islands, and interdict all 
trade between us and her colonial possessions ; and possibly still 
further, that she would endeavour to extort from us the coast fishe- 
ries around her own shores ; for, on the magnanimity or friendship 
of Great Britain, or of any other nation, in matters of interest, I 
confess I never had the ability to lash my imagination into any sort 
of dependence ; but I did also cherish the belief that none of our 
essential or important rights or liberties would be diminished or sur- 
rendered. Of the latter, the one of the greatest consequence in 
reference to its intrinsic value, and as derived from discovery and 
possession, and confirmed by a formal treaty stipulation, is unques- 
tionably that to which you have referred — tlie coast fisheries on the 
shores of the British possessions in North America. 

" These fisheries, as most advantageously secured to the United 
States by the treaty of 1783, and made at the time, as I have always 
undeYstood, a sine qua non of that treaty, offer an invaluable fund 
of wealth and power to our country ; one which has never beaa 
duly attended to, nor justly appreciated, but which,, if continued 



211 

and improved, was destined to grow with our growth and strengthen 
with our strength. 

" The prosecution of these coast and bay fisheries, although it 
had already become extremely advantageous, had undoubtedly 
reached, in a very small degree, the extension and importance it 
was capable of attaining. The unsettled state of the commercial 
world for the past twenty years, and the more alluring objects of 
mercantile enterprise which such a state of things evolved, seemed, 
in point of immediate consideration and attention, to throw these 
fisheries into the back ground ; but still, until first checked by the 
system of embargoes and restrictions, and finally stopped by a de- 
claration of war, they were silently, but rapidly, progressing, and 
reaching an importance which, though generally unknown to our 
country and its statesmen, had become highly alarming to the go- 
vernments and more wealthy merchants of the provinces, and was 
beginning to attract the attention and jealousy of the cabinet of 
Great Britain towards them. 

"■ The shores, the creeks, the inlets of the Bay of Fundy, the Bay 
of Chuleurs, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Straits of Bellisle, 
and the Coast of Labrador, appear to have been designed by the 
God of Nature as the great ovarium offish ; — the inexhaustible re- 
pository of this species of food, not only for the supply of the Ame- 
rican, but of the European continent. At the proper season, to 
catch them in endless abundance, little more of efi'ort is needed than 
to bait the hook and pull the line, and occasionally even this is not 
necessary. In clear weather, near the shores, myriads are visible 
and the strand is at times almost literally paved with them. 

" All this was gradually making itself known to the enterprise 
and vigilance of the New-England fishermen, and for a few seasons 
prior to the year 1808, the resort to this employment had become 
an object of attention, from the Thames, at New-London, to the 
Schoodic ; and boats and vessels of a small as well as a larger size, 
were flocking to it from all the intermediate parts of the United 
States. In the fishing season, at the best places for catching the 
cod, the New-England fishermen, I am told, on a Sunday, swarmed 
like flies upon the shores, and that in some of these years, it pro- 
bably would not make an overestimate to rate the number of vessels 
employed in this fishery, belonging to the United States, at from 
1500 to 2000 sail, reckoning a vessel for each trip or voyage, and 
including the larger boat fishery ; and the number, if the fisheries 
were continued, would shortly be still further and very greatly ex- 
tended. 

'* The nursery for seamen, the consequent increase of power, 
the mine of wealth, the accumulation of capital, (for it has been 
justly observed, that he who draws a cod fish from the sea, gives a 
piece of silver to his country,) the effect upon the trade and cus- 
tom of Great Britain, and tlie corresponding advantages to the 
United States, of which the enlargement of such an intercourse 
ivas susceptible, (for the stock of fish appears inexhaustible,) vou 



212 

are much better able to conceive than I am to describe ; but I witl; 
pleasure point them anew Ibr your consideration, as on many ac- 
counts presenting one ol'the most interesting public objects to which 
it can be directed. 

Lucrative, however, and imposing in its individual and national 
bearings, as this fishery was and was to become, it was little known 
to the leading men of our country, and little spoken of by others, 
even in Massachusetts, or among those who were actually engaged 
in it, and a knowledge of its existence in any thing like its real 
extent, or future capability, was perhaps confined to not more than 
half a dozen heads, (if so many,) in the whole of the Southern and 
Western, and even Middle divisions of the Union. 

" The causes of its value and importance not being a matter ol" 
great notoriety here, are obvious ; it was an employment not only 
in the fishery, but in many instances undoubtedly in trade, with 
the British inhabitants ; those who were engaged in it made no un- 
necessary promulgations of their employment, while the poorer in- 
habitants of the provinces, tasting equally its sweets and advan- 
tages, were alike disposed to keep silence with regard to it ; but not 
so situated were the provincial governments, and the more wealthy 
of the merchants of the sea-port towns. They had become highly 
alarmed at the expansion of this fishery and trade; jealous of its 
progress and clamorous at its endurance; they, therefore, of late 
years, have repeatedly memorialized the government in England, 
respecting the fisheries carried on by the Americans, while the 
whole«body of Scottish adventurers, whose trade both in imports 
and exports, and control over the inhabitants it curtailed, have 
turned out in full cry and joined the chorus of the colonial govern- 
ments in a crusade against the encroachments of the infidels, the 
disbelievers in the divine authority of kings, or the rights of the 
provinces, and have pursued their objects so assiduously that at 
their own expense, as I am informed from a respectable source, in 
the year 1807 or 8, they stationed a watchmhn in soaic favourable 
position near the Straits of Canso, to count the number of American 
vessels which passed those straits on this employment ; who re- 
turned nine hundred and thirty eight as the number actually ascer- 
tained by him to have passed, and doubtless many others, during 
the night or in stormy or thick ^veather, escaped his observation ; 
and some of these addressers have distinctly looked forward with 
gratification to a state of war, as a desirable occurrence, which 
would, by its existence, annul existing treaty stipulations, so inju- 
rious, as they contend, to their interests and those of the nation. 
"With what degree of correctness this expecliition has been enter- 
tained, the future must determine ; but unfortunately these mur- 
murs and complaints reached England, and were industriously cir- 
culated about the time that our restrictive measures awitkened an 
unusual and critical attention to the commercial connection between 
the two countries, and probably the value and importance of this 
branch of it is now at least as fully understood and appreciated on 
rhe eastern as on the western side 9f the Atlantic. 



213 

** Carried away by first impressions, a large part of mankind be° 
come not unfrequently the dupes of misconception, and adhere to 
their opinions with a pertinacity proportioned to the time they have 
entertained them. From a source something like this, it has been, 
and is generalW, I might almost say, universally, believed, by the 
mass of our countrymen, that the right of fishing on the Banks of 
Newfoundland, or as it is properly called, the Grand Bank, was the 
great boon acquired, as it respected the fisheries, by the treaty of 
1783, while unquestionably the fisheries on the Banks of New- 
foundland no more belonged exclusively in possession or the right 
of control either to Great Britain or the United States, than the air 
of Heaven is the patent property of both or either of them, with 
power to dole out its use to such other nations as agree to conform 
to the stipulations they may please to prescribe for its enjoyment. 
If any thing was gained or secured on this head, it undoubtedly was 
the Coast Fisheries, on the shores of the British provinces. Thi'i 
is the fishery which will now come under discussion, at least, if not 
into contest, between the two countrief?. It is highly important that 
correct ideas of its value and extent should be entertained, and per- 
haps these could not be more perspicuously traced than by taking 
a relative view of it, compared with the importance of the Bank 
Fishery. This I will now briefly attempt ; confident, that if in do- 
ing it I should be reiterating to you the communication of facts of 
a knowledge of which you are already acquainted, the motive will 
bring along with it its own sufficient apology. 

"jThe Batifc Fishery is carried on m vessels generally from 70 to 
90 tons burthen, and manned with eight oi*ten men each. They 
commence their voyages early in March, and continue in this em- 
ployment until the last of October, in which time they make iieo, 
and sometimes three, fares to the United States, bringing their fish 
home to be cured. The produce of these trips, if successful, after 
paying the shoresmen the expense of making or curing, generally 
furnishes a sufficient quantity of dried fish to load the vessel tor 
Europe. These vessels employed in fishing require cables of 
from 160 to 180 fathoms in length. They must always keep their 
sails bent to the yards, ?o as to be ready, in case of accident to the 
cable, or any of those adverse occurrences to which tempests or the 
casualties incident to anchoring nearly in mid-ocean, must expos*^- 
them. They purchase salted clams for bait, which tliey procure at 
considerable expense, and take with them from the United Slates. 
They fish night and dij, when the fish bite well, which is not always 
the case, and haul tlieir cod in a depth of water from 45 to 65 fa 
thorns. After catching, they head and open the fish, and plac. 
them in the hold, in an uncured, and consequently, in some degree, 
in a partially perishing state ; and after having obtained a fare, or 
freight, return with it to the United States, to be cured or dried and 
prepared for exportation ; but before this is done, or they can be 
landed, the fish is always more or less deteriorated, becomes soft- 
er, and part of it makes an inferior quality of fish, crjUed .Tnmai( ;i 



214 

fish, and the proportiou of this Jamaica fish is much greater tnar;it 
would have been had the fish been dried and cured shortly after 
having been taken, as is the case with the Coast and Bay Fishery ; 
in addition to which, these vessels employed in the Bank Fishery 
are unavoidably obliged to prosecute this business with a great 
comparative expense, as to the wear and tear of their vessels, and 
loss of time, and with an increased degree of hazard, both as to 
safety and success. 

" The Coast and Labrador Fisheries are prosecuted in vessels of 
from 40 to 120 tons burthen, carrying a number of men, according 
to their respective sizes, in about the same proportion as the ves- 
sels on the Bank Fishery. They commence their voyages in May, 
and get on the fishing ground about the 1st of June, before whicii 
time bait cannot be obtained. This bait is furnished by a small 
species of fish called capling, which strike in shore at that time, 
and are followed by immense shoals of cod fish, which feed upon 
them. Each vessel selects its own fishing ground, along the coasts 
of the Bay of Chaleurs, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Straits of 
Bellisle, the Coast of Labrador, even as far as Cumberland Island, 
and the entrance of Hudson's Bay, thus improving a fishing ground 
reaching in extent from the 46th to the 68th degree of north latitude. 

" In choosing their situation, the fishermen generally seek some 
sheltered and safe harbour, or cove, where they anchor in about 
six or seven fathoms water, unbend their sails, stow them below, and 
literally making themselves at home, dismantle and convert their ves- 
sels into habitations at least aa durable as those of the ancient Scy- 
thians, They then cast*a net over the stern of the vessel, in which 
a sufficient number of capling are soon caught to supply them with 
bait from day to day. Each vessel is furnished with four or five 
light boats, according to their size and number ot men, each boat 
requiring two men. They leave the vessel early in the morning, 
and seek the best or sufficiently good spot for fishing, which is fre- 
quently found within a few rods of their vessels, and very rarely 
more than one or two miles distant from them, where they haul the 
fish as fast as they can pull their lines, and sometimes it is said that 
the fish have been so aoundant, as to be gaft or scooped into the 
boats, without even a hook or line ; and the fishermen also say that 
the cod fish have been known to pursue the capling in such quan- 
tities, and with such voracity, as to run in large numbers quite out 
of water on to the shores. The boats return to the vessels about 
nine o'clock in the morning, at breakfast, put their fish on board, 
salt and split them ; and after having fished several days, by which 
time the salt has been sufficiently struck in the fish first caught, they 
carry them on shore and spread and dry them on the rocks or tem- 
porary flakes. This routine is followed every day, with the addi- 
tion of attending to such as have been spread, and carrying on board 
and stowing away those that have become sufficiently cured, until 
the vessel is filled with dried fish, fit for an immediate market, 
which is generally the case by the middle or last of August, and 



215 

with which she then proceeds immediately to Europe, or returns 
10 the United States ; and this tish, thus caught and cured, is es- 
teemed the best that is brought to market, and 'for several years pre- 
vious to that of 1808, was computed to furnish three fourth parts of 
all the dried fish exported trom the United States. This fishery 
was also about that time taking a new form, which would have had 
a double advantage, both in point of profit and extension ; for some 
of our merchants were beginning to send their large vessels to the 
Labrador Coast, and its vicinity, to receive there, ivoxa small fishing 
boats they employed or purchased from, cured fish, to load their 
vessels with immediately for Europe, thus saving so great an ex- 
pense in getting the fish to market abroad, as would in a short time 
have given our merchants a command of the European markets, 
and would have also afforded an encouragement to a small but very 
numerous boat fishery, which, from receiving the pay for their IcW- 
hour on the spot, could not fail to have been greatly excited and in- 
creased, and enabling the persons concerned in the exportation 
from the coast, to receive at home the proceeds of their adventures 
from abroad, about as early as the bank fish could have been put 
into a state fit to be exported from the United States ; in addition to 
which, we were prosecuting a very productive salmon and macka- 
rel fishery, in the same vicinity, as most of the pickled fish we had 
received for some years prior to the war were caught on those 
shores. 

" This Coast Fishery, then, most highly important and invaluable 
as I think it must be admitted to be, even from the foregoing hasty Bad 
imperfect sketch of it, merits every possible degree of attention and 
effort for its preservation on the part of the government of the 
United States. The refusal of the British commissioners to re- 
new or recognise the stipulation of the treaty of 1783, respecting 
it, and the notification, I hope not formally given, that it would not 
hereafter be permitted without an equivalent, are alarming indica- 
tions in reference to the future peaceable prosecution of this fish- 
ery, and of the dispositions of the British government with regard 
to 'it. 

" The difference of expression used in the third article of the 
treaty of peace of 1783, as to the right of fis^hing on the Banks of 
Newfoundland, and the liberty of fishing on the coasts of the Bri- 
tish provinces in North America, however it might have originated, 
affords a diversity of expression which, in the present instance, 
will be seized, and be made to give the partizans of Great Britain 
and of the provinces a popular colour of justice in support of their 
arguments, when they contend, as I think they probably will do, 
that in so important a compact the variance of language could not 
have been a matter of accident ; that if precision in the use of 
terms in their most literal sense is any where to be expected, it is 
certainly to be looked for in an insjtrument which is to form the 
paramount law between two nations, whose clashing interests have 
brought them into collision, and which is generally framed by men 



216 

oY the most distinguished talenis of each party, the acuteness of 
whose conceptions is alwaj's kept in full play by the contending; 
pretensions they have respectively to consult and sustain ; and that 
therefore a distinction was made, and was intended to be made, at 
the time of the negotiation between a right derived from the God 
of nature, and to be exercised on the common held of his bounty, the 
great high-way of nations; and the liberty, permission, or indulgence, 
as they will term it, to continue the exercise of an employment on 
the coast at the very doors, and withm the peculiar and especial 
jurisdiction, ot another nation : the one according to this doctrine 
being a right inherent and not to be drawn in question, the other 
a sufferance open to modification or denial altogether subsequently 
to a war, according to the will or the interests of the party origia- 
•ally acceding to it. 

" The liberty, for the expression of the treaty in the discussion 
between the two nations must be admitted, whether it operate ad- 
versely or favourably to us, rests for its own continuance either as 
we assert on the ground of right as an anterior possession and a 
perpetual franchise, or as the British will contend on the existence 
of the treaty of 1783. The first ground to be supported on the 
view taken of it in your own letter and in that which you had the 
goodness to communicate to me, and even on the second, admitting 
pro forma that a declaration of war does ipso facto abrogate all 
previous treaty stipulations brought into contest by it, unless tacitly 
or expressly renewed by a new treaty to be an acknowledged prin- 
ciple of international law, still the right in question could, 1 be- 
lieve, rest untouched and unaffected, although I know not with 
what degree of decision or determination the negation of a future 
use of the coast fisheries was brought forward in the negotiations 
at Ghent by the British commissioners. But whil^ on the one 
hand the coupling the offer to treat for a renewal of the liberty of 
the coast fisheries for an equivalent with a proposition to treat for 
a renewal of the right of the free navigation of the Mississippi, 
also for an equivalent, unless, as has been suspected, they were 
made with the insidious purpose of obtaining an admission that both 
had already ceased to exist, shows the confidence they would wish 
to appear to entertain in the soundness of their position, that the 
war had extinguished both the right and the liberty ; for the former, 
the free navigation of the Mississip[ii, if force of language and repe- 
tition are to have any weight, couid not well have been placed on a 
stronger basis, it being very expressly and explicitly contracted for 
in the treaty of 1783, recognised in that of 1794, and again men- 
tioned in a provisional article in 1796, still on the other hand, the 
omission in the new treaty to state that the treaty of 1783 had ex- 
pired or been annulled, and a reference having been made to it in 
several instances, is a yet stronger evidence that they did consider 
that treaty as remaining in existence and of consequence, entitled 
to respect and observance in all such of its provisions as had not 
been specially contravened in the new treaty. 



^ 



217 

" A liberty .was recognised by the treaty of 1783, for the inha 
bitants of the United States to prosecute the fisheries on the coasts 
of British North America, with the exception of the island of 
Newfoundland, not only where the parties had been accustomed to 
use them, but where British fishermen not only did but might 
thereafter (that is subsequently to the date of the treaty) j^irose- 
cute them, and this right, for it had now become a right of liberty 
or use, demanded by the one party and admitted and acknowledged 
by the other, was wholly without limits as to its duration, and 
could then only cease or the limitation take effect on the happening 
of one of three events, that is, the surrender of the party possess- 
ing the right and the annulment of the treaty which confirmed it, 
or by an usurped and unjustifiable exercise of power on the one 
part in defiance of the rights of the other, and in violation of those 
common principles of good faith which can alone regulate the in- 
tercourse between nations ; but the surrender of the right has not 
been made by the United States, and the treaty of 1703 has not 
been annihilated by the exi'^tence of the war, because the parties 
have not only not agreed to abrogate it, but have expressly refer- 
red to it, and in the treaty of Ghent made a provision to carry the 
stipulations as to boundaries of the treaty of 1783, more fully and 
completely into effect : now it being an uncontroverted principle 
of the law ot evidence, that the whole must be admitted if a part 
Is received, unless some reciprocal and mutual agreement exists to 
the contrary, and as no such stipulation does exist in the present 
case, the treaty of 1783, is, as I should contend, even by the show- 
ing of the British commissioners themselves, still in existence, 
with all the rights and liberties incident to it, with the full and free 
use to the inhabitants of the United States of the fisheries, as for- 
merly recognised and secured to the United States by that treaty. 

" This is the construction, whether to be supported on this^ 
ground or any other, which 1 hope the government of our country 
v>'il! maintain. It is a right most highly important to the eastera 
section, and, indeed, to the present and future naval and commercial 
power of the United States ; and should the British ministry or the 
colonial authorities attempt to interdict this fishery, as I think they 
now will, to the inhabitants of the United States, the government 
ought, and I trust will, take the most prompt and effectual measures 
(o obtain and enforce a renewal or recognition of this right as it has 
heretofore existed. It is a gem which should never be surrendered, 
nor can it ever be abandoned by any statesman, alive to the inter- 
ests of his country : compared in its consequences with a free right 
of navigating the Mississippi, it is even a much more unequal stako 
than would be " six French rapiers imponed against six Barbary 
horses." 

" The right of navigating the Mississippi, since the acquisition 
of Louisiana and the possession of both sides of the river by the 
United States, and when the difficulties of the ascending naviga- 
tion are considered, and the jealousy and inconvenience which the 



218 i 

] 
subjects' of Great Britain must experience from attempting to avail i 
of it, can be of little value to her, except as in its higher branches \ 
and on the Missouri, it may facilitate the prosecution of Ihe fur I 
trade. This trade, however, although it employs a large number I 
of persons, never has been very important to the nation, and must ' 
from the operation of unavoidable causes, gradually lessen, and in 
the course of a few years probably recede altogether from the 
great rivers. She has, therefore, notwithstanding the opinion of 
two of the American commissioners and her own probable preten- 
sions of fairness given up nothing in point of value compared with 
the fisheries, which, upon the same ground, she is undoubtedly de- 
sirous of fortifying herself in withholding. 

" In compliance with the intimation you had given me, I have 
commented on this subject at much greater length even than 1 had 
contemplated at the outset, perhaps, too minutely when I recollect 
that a part of it at least must be much better understood at Q,uincy 
than by myself, but the account of the recent state of these fish- 
eries and the mode in which they were prosecuted, I thought might 
not be unacceptable to you. My information with regard to them, 
has in general been derived from respectable sources upon which 
I can rely, never having had any direct interest or concern in 
the fisheries myself 1 have not attempted to apply the principles 
of public law to the question respecting them, because th.e few 
books of this description which 1 possess, are still at Washington ; 
and since the rising of the council, I have not had time to make any 
research elsewhere, and because I presume this part of the busi- 
ness will be placed under the hands of those who will have both 
the means and the ability to do it ample justice. 

" I had intended also in reference to the treaty of 1814, to have 
made some few remarks upon the interdiction it may occasion, of a 
trade between the United States and the British ports in India, and 
on its operation upon the contested boundary on our North Eastern 
frontier, so far as regards the right of possession to the Islands of 
Dudley, Moose, and Frederick, in the Bay of Passamaquoddy. I 
have, however, already so unduly trespassed on your patience, that 
I will only not omit them altogether. Both these objects attach 
to them some importance, but compared in point of value with the 
possession of the fisheries, perhaps in a ratio not much greater 
than the bullion in the mint at Philadelphia would be to the ore in 
the mines of Peru. 

" Feeling persuaded that in avowing the hope that all these ob- 
jects may be disposed of in such a manner as best to confirm the 
rights and secure the interests of the United States, I shall unite 
fully in sentiment with yourself. 

" I have the honour to remain, sir, with great consideration, your 
very respectful and obedient servant, 

"JAMES LLOYD.'' 



219 

The following letter from a very respectable merchant, cuii- 
cerned himself in the fisheries, contains further interesting de- 
tails — 

Boston, May 2t)tb, 1815. 

" Dear sir : Argeeably to your request to me, I have endeavour- 
ed to obtain every information in my power relative to our fisheries 
in this and the neighbouring States, with their tonnage, number of 
men employed, quantity of fish caught, quantity of salt used, 
and the probable price they averaged at foreign markets. As 1 
was not acquainted with this business before our revolutionary war, 
I shall endeavour to give you a statement from the year 1790 to 
1810 ; to some my account may appear large or much exaggerated; 
but I have conversed with several gentlemen who have been large- 
ly concerned in the business, and two of them took much pains 
to ascertain the number, etc. some time since ; and I find they go 
far beyond me ; but I shall endeavour to give you as correct a state- 
ment as I can, and wish it may prove satisfactory to you. 

*' Your humble servant." 

" My calculation is, that there were employed in the Bank, La- 
brador, and Bay fisheries, the years above mentioned, 1232 vessels 
yearly, viz. 584 to the Banks, and 648 to the Bay and Labrador. I 
think the 584 Bankers may be put down 36,540 tons, navigated by 
4,627 men and boys, (each vessel carrying one boy,) they take and 
cure, annually, 510,700 quintals offish ; they average about three 
fares a year, consume, annually, 81,170 hhds. salt, the average cost 
of these vessels is about ^ 2,000 each ; the average price of these 
fish at foreign markets is ^ 6 per quintal ; these vessels also make 
from their fish, annually, 17,620 barrels of oil, which commands 
about ^ 10 per barrel, their equipments cost about $ 900, annually, 
exclusive of salt. 

" The 648 vessels that fish at the Labrador and Bay, I put down 
48,600 tons, navigated by 5,832 men and boys ; they take and cure, 
annually, 648,000 quintals of fish ; they go but one fare a year ; 
consume, annually, 97,200 hhds. of salt. The average cost of these 
vessels is about f, IfiOO ; the cost of their equipments, provisions, 
etc. is 1050 dollars : those descriptions of vessels are not so valu- 
able as the bankers, more particularly those that go from the Dis- 
trict of Maine, Connecticut, and Rhode-Island, as they are mostly 
sloops of no very great value ; most of these vessels cure a part 
of their fish where they catch them, on the beach, rocks, etc. and 
the rest after they return home ; several cargoes of dry fish are 
shipped yearly from the Labrador direct for Europe. The usual 
markets for those fish are in the Mediterranean, say Alicant, Leg- 
horn, Naples, Marseilles, etc. as those markets prefer small fish, 
and the greatest part of the fish caught up the bay and Labrador 
are very small. The average price of these fish at the market 
ihey are disposed of is $ 5 ; these vessels also make from their fish 



220 

about 20,000 bbls. of oil, which always meets a ready sale an-J ai* 
handsome prices, say from ^ 8 to ^ 12 per barrel, the most of it is 
consumed in the United States. 

*' 1232 vessels employed in the Bank, Bay, and Labrador fisheries, 
measuring ... Tons, 85,140 

Number of men they are navigated by, 10,459 

Number of hhds. salt they consume, 178,370 hhds. 

Quantity of fish they take and cure, 1,158,700 quintals. 

Barrels of oil they make, 37,520 barrels. 

" There are also a description of vessels called jiggers or small 
schooners of about from 30 to 45 tons that fish in the South Chan- 
nel, on the Shoals and Cape Sables, their number 300, they carry 
about 4 or 5 hands, say 1200 men, and take about 75,000 qtls. of 
fish, annually ; consume 12,000 hhds. of salt, and make about 4,000 
barrels of oil ; their fish is generally sold for the West Indies and 
home consumption. 

" There are another description of fishing vessels commonly cal- 
led Chebacco Boats or Pink Sterns ; their number 600 ; they are 
from 10 to 28 tons, and carry two men and one boy each, say 1,800 
hands; they consume 15,000 hhds. of salt, and take and cure 
120,000 quintals of fish, annually. These fish also are wholly 
osed for home and West India market, except the very first they 
take early in the spring, which are very nice indeed, and are sent 
to the Bilbao market, in Spain, where they always bring a great 
price ; they make 9,000 barrels of oil ; these vessels measure about 
10,800 tons. 

" There are also about 200 schooners employed in the mackerel 
fishery, measuring 8,000 tons, they carry 1,600 men and boys, they 
take 60,000 barrels, annually, and consume 6,000 hhds salt. 

" The alewive, shad, salmon, and herring fishery is also immense, 
and consumes a great quantity of salt. 

" Whole number of fishing vessels of all descriptions 2,332 
]\Ieasuring - - Tons, 115,940 

Number of men navigated by, 15,059 

Salt they consume, - - 265,370 hhds, 

Quantity of fish they take and cure, 1,353,700 quintals. 
Number of barrels of oil, - 50,520 barrels. 

Number of barrels of mackerel, 60,000 barrels, 

" There are many gentlemen assert, and roundly too, that one 
year there were at the Labrador and Bay, over 1,700 sail beside 
the bankers ; but I feel very confident they are much mistaken, it 
is impossible it can be correct." 

These papers will sutrjco to show what reliance is to be placed 
on that inforraaiioQ concerning the value of the fishing liberties, as 
they had been enjoyed by the people of the United States from 
the peace of 1783, to the war of 1812, which Mr. Russell in hi=. 
letter from Paris, of 11th February, 1815, says is the best infor- 
mation he cxin obtain : but which, in the duplicate of 3 823, he di- 



221 

lates into the best information which he and his colleagues at Ghent 
could obtain, and thus represents as the informatiou upon which 
they as well as he had acted. It may be proper to refer also to 
documents, showing, 1. The extent of the interest in the fisheries 
of which the British government intended at the negotiation of 
Ghent, to obtain from the United States the tacit or implied surren- 
der. 2. The value of this interest as estimated, by British autho- 
rities. 

The instructions from the Secretary of State to the American 
commissioners at Ghent, commanding them in no event to surren- 
der the fisheries, but if such surrender should be insisted on to break 
off the negotiation, were dated the 24th of June, 1814. By asinguiar 
and fortunate coincidence of events they were received on the 
evening of the 8th of August, the very day upon which the British 
plenipotentiaries had notified to us the intentions of their govern- 
ment not to grant the liberties in the jVori'/t American fisheries, 
which, as they stated, had been granted by the treaty of 1783. 

In the 6th volume of Nile's Register, p, 239, under date of the 
1 1th of June, 1814, there is a memorial of the merchants and prin- 
cipal resident inhabitants interested in the trade and fisheries of 
Newfoundland, to admiral Keats, who had been some time governor 
of that island, and was then about returning to England. It was 
dated 8th November, 1813, and in the Register was preceded by 
the following remarks, which serve to indicate the popular feeling 
of the time. 

From Niles's Register of lltli June, 1814.. — The Fisheries. 

" The following memorial has excited considerable interest, par- 
ticularly in the eastern States, so far as we have heard of its pro- 
mulgation, I cannot doubt, from the high ground assumed by Great 
Britain since her victories on the continent, but that she will at- 
tempt to exclude us from the fisheries as the grand nursery of her 
seamen, etc. This opinion is strengthened by hosts of " Extracts 
of Letters from England.'''' Let those who have calculated on the 
"magnanimity" of Great Britain look to it ; those who have ex- 
pected nothing of her justice " are blessed for they shall not be 
disappointed." 

" The Boston Centinel says this memorial is alarmingly interest- 
ing. It was borne to England by admiral Keats, the late governor 
of Newfoundland, who has promised to give it his support." 

^^ JVo peace without the fisheries'''' has begun to be the cry. l{ pa- 
triotism has failed, we are pleased to see that interest is about to 
unite the people ; and I am very much mistaken in the character 
of the ' middle' and ' south' if their representatives shall for a mo- 
ment abandon the one iota of the rights of the ' eastern' population, 
however perverse it may have been to the views of an immens<^ 
majority of our citizens. If we '/»«// together'' all will be well. 

28 



222 

Extracts from the Memorial of the Newfoundland Merchants to Admiral Keat% 
8th Nov. 1813. 

" Conceiving that our existence as a great and independent nation 
must chiefly depend upon our preserving the sovereignty of the 
seas, the policy of excluding France and America from the advan- 
tages those nations have heretofore enjoyed in the tioaes of peace, 
in this fishery, must be evident to every pian of observation en- 
gaged in this branch of commerce. 

" By former treaties with France and the United States of Ame- 
rica, these powers were allowed certain privileges on those shores, 
banks, coast of Labrador, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the 
opinion of your excellency's memorialists highly impolitic, and 
%yhich the wisdom of the British government never would concede 
except under very peculiar circumstances. 

" Fifteen hundred American vessels have been known to be 
prosecuting the fishery at one time on the Labrador coast, bringing 
with them coffee, teas, spirits and other articles of contraband. 

" The intercourse of our fishermen with these secret enemies 
of Britain, has an effect not less fatal to their moral character than 
to our fishery. The small planters and catchers of fish which 
make the great body of the people on the coast of Labrador under 
the influence of notions imbibed by their daily intercourse with 
men whose interests are at war with ours, become dissatisfied with 
their supplying merchants who are unable to meet their foreign 
competitors upon equal ground. The next step, ' as experience 
shows, is the neglect of the only means in their power to discharge 
their debts, disobedience arrd insubordination follow, and finally, 
(heir minds become alienated from their own gavernment, and they 
emigrate to another, to the great loss of their country. 

" In times of peace, besides, the citizens of the United States 
resort, in great nnmbers, to the Banks, where they anchor in vio- 
lation of express stipulations to the great annoyance of this valua- 
ble branch of the Newfoundland trade. Nor is it possible tl;at the 
strictest vigilance is ofteo^able to detect them in the breach of such 
stipulations. 

" The evils growing out of impolitic concessions to insidious 
iViends, are more extensive than your excellency's memorialists 
have yet stated ; they accompany our commerce into the markets 
of Europe and the West-Indies. « 

" In the United States, men, provisions, and every other article 
of outfit are procured upon much better terms than the nature of 
things will admit with the British. These combined advantages en- 
able them to undersell the British merchant in the foreign market. 
Hence heavy losses have often by him been sustained, and must 
always be sustained under similar circumstances. 

" The increased advantages since the commencement of hosti- 
lities with America, derived to both our import and export trade, 
having now no competitors in the foreign market, and what is <^' 



223 

the last and highest importance, the increase of our means to make 
mariners, while those of our enemies must, in the same propor- 
tion, be crippled, show the wisdom of preserving the 'vantage 
ground' we now stand upon. And your excellency's memorialists 
feel the more urgent in their present representation, as the pros- 
pects which happily have recently opened in Europe, may afford 
a well-grounded hope that the time is not very remote when 
negotiations may be opened for the return of permanent peace. 

" From the protection afforded to the trade of this island by 
your excellency, as well as by his excellency, sir John B. War- 
ren, a great number of fishing vessels have gone to Labrador from 
Nova-Scotia, the number of them employed on the Labrador shores 
this season has been double, and the absence of their former intru- 
ders has enabled them to fish unmolested. Your excellency's me- 
morialists beg to press upon your serious consideration, of which 
they cannot too often urge the important policy, should fortunately 
the circumstances of Europe ultimately encourage such a hope, of 
wholly excluding foreigners from sharing again in the advantages 
of fishing, from which a large proportion of our best national de- 
fence will be derived." 

The following extracts from Colquhoun's Treatise on the Wealth, 
Power, and Resources of the British empire, further illustrate the 
views of the British government in relation to the contested fish- 
eries at the negotiation of Ghent, and the valve of these fisheries. 
The first edition of Colquhoun's work was published on the 20th 
of July, 1814 ; the second edition, from which these extracts were 
made, on the 18th of April, 1815. In the interval between these 
two periods, the negotiation at Ghent commenced and terminated, 
and Mr. Russell's letter from Paris was written. 

Extracts from Colquhoun's Treatise on the' Wealth, Power, and Resources of 
the British empire — 2d edit. ]8l5. 

" The vahie of these fisheries (of the British colonies in Nortli 
' America,) to the parent state, will be more obvious after the 
" lapse of 20 or 30 years, than at present. Certain it is, however, 
" that their value is beyond all calculation : and their preservation 
" as a part of the British empire, is of the most vital importance." 
— p. 16, note. See also p. 424. 

The value of these fisheries, in the table No. 8, p. 36. is esti- 
mated at £ 7,650,000 sterling. > 

" New-Brunswick and Nova-Scolia, from being both watered by 
" the Bay of Fundy, enjoy advantai:,es over Canada, which more 
'* than compensate a greater sterility of soil. These are to be 
" traced to the valuable and extensive fisheries in the Bay of Fun - 
" dy, which, in point of abundance and variety of the finest fish, 
•' exceed all calculation, and may be considered as a mine of gold-- 



221 

" a treasure which cannot be estimated too high, since with httk 
" labour, comparatively speaking, enough could be obtained to feed 
"all Europe." pp. 312-313. 

" Since the trade with the United States has been so greatly ob- 
" structed, the produce of the fisheries in the British colonies, thus 
" encouraged by the removal of all competition, has been greatly 
" augmented ; and nothing but a move extended population is re- 
" quired to carry this valuable branch of trade almost to any given 
" extent. 

" It will be seen by a reference to the notes in the table annex- 
'* ed to this chapter, that the iuhabitarUs of the United Slates derive 
'* incalculable advantages, and employ a vast number of men and 
*' vessels in the fishery in the river St. Lawrence, and on the coast 
" of Nova Scotia, which exclusively belong to Great Britain. The 
" dense population of the Northern States, and their local situation 
" in the vicinity of the most prolific fishing stations, have enabled 
" them to acquire vast wealth by the indulgence of this country." 
p. 313. 

" It ought ever to be kept in view, that (with the exception of the 
" small islands of St. Pierre and Miguelon, restored to France by 
" the treaty of Paris, in May, 1814,) the whole of the most valua- 
" ble fisheries in North America exclusively belong at this present 
** time to the British cnmm, which gives to this country a monopoly 
" in all the mai'kets in Europe and the West ladies, or a right to a 
" certain valuable consideration from all foreign nations, to whom 
" the British government may concede the privilege of carrying on 
" a fishery in these seas." p. 314. 

" Private fisheries are a source of great profit to the individuals, 
" in this and other countries, who have acquired a right to such 
" fisheries. Why, therefore, should not the united kingdom de- 
" rive a similar advantage from the fisheries it possesses within the 
" range of its extensive territories in North America, (perhaps the 
" richest and mo«t prolific in the world,) by declaring every ship 
" and vessel liable to confiscation which should presume to fish in 
" those seas without previously paying a tonnage duty, and receiv- 
" ing a license limited to a cerlain period when fish may be caught, 
" with the privilege of curing such fish in the British territories ? 
" All nations to have an equal claim to such licenses, limited to cer- 
" tain stations, but to permit none to supply the British West-In- 
" dies, except his majesty's subjects, whether resident in the colo- 
" nies or in the parent state." p. 315. 

(E.) Si. John'^s or Prince Ed-vard''s Isla?i(i. 

"Fisheries. This island is of the itighest importance to the 

" united kingdom. Whether the possession of it be considered with 
" rehitioa to t'le Americans, or as an acquisition of a great maritime 
" power, it is worthy of the most particular attention of govern- 
" ment. Mr. Stewart has justly remarked, in his account of that 
• island, (page £96,) that 'the fishery carried on, from the Ame- 



225 

^- rican States, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for some years past, is 
" very extensive, and is known to be one of the greatest resources 
" of the wealth of the Eastern States, from which about 2000 
" schooners, of from 70 to 100 tons, are annually sent into the Gulf ; 
" of these, about 1400 make their tish in the Straits of Bellisle, and 
" on the Labrador shore, from whence what is intended for the 
" European market is shipped off, without being sent to their own 
" ports. About six hundred American schooners make their fares 
" on the north side of the island, and often make two trips in a sea- 
" son, returning with full cargoes to their own ports, where the fish 
" are dried. The number of men employed in this fishery is esti- 
" mated at between fifteen and twenty thousand, and the profits on 
" it are known to be very great. To see such a source of woalth 
** and naval power on our own coasts, and in our very harbours, 
*' abandoned to the Americans, is much to be regretted, and would 
" be distressing, were it not that the means of re-occupying the 
" whole, with such advantages as must soon preclude all competi- 
" tion, is afforded in the cultivation and settlement of Prince Ed- 
" ward's Island." pp. 318, 319. 

It remains only to notice the painful and invidious industry with 
which Mr. Russell inculcates the doctrine, that because the direct 
and immediate interest in these fisheries was confined to the State 
of Massachusetts, they were, therefore, of no value, either as- 
right, or possession, to the rest of the Union. If any thing could 
add to the incorrect moral character of this doctrine, it would be 
the claim of merit for enlarged patriotism and more than disinter- 
ested virtue in maintaining it. When imputing to the majority of 
the Ghent mission, the phantom of his own fancy, b}' assuming that 
they had rested a right to the fisheries upon prescription, among his 
battering rams against this wind-mill, is the argument that the 
United States, including their new acquisition of Louisiana, could 
not claim hy prescription, a right which had been exercised onh' by 
the people of Massachusetts. The essence of this enlarged patriot- 
ic sentiment is, that a possession or liberty, the enjoyment or exer- 
cise of which is, from local causes, confined to one Stale, is not, 
and cannot be, a possession or liberty of the whole Union. For 
suppose prescription had been our only title to this liberty ; Mr. 
Russell's argument is, that it could not be the liberty of the whole 
Union, because, if it were, it would have been abrogated by the 
acquisition of Louisiana ; and the point where this profound inves- 
tigation lands him, is, to use his own words, that for the fishing li- 
berty " V,E ARE CONSEQUENTLY LEFT WITHOUT ANY TITLE TO LT 

" WHATSOEVEK." This was the last result of his enlarged patriot- 
ism : for, as to the insinuation in the joint letter of 2jth Decem- 
ber, 1814, which he had signed, that the fishing liberty was a sti- 
pulated partici])ation of territorial jurisdiction, for necessary pur- 
poses of the fishery, reserved by the United States in the treaty 
of separation between the two uations ; this j>rotension. he says, 



226 

fjowever lofty, is so inconsistent with the circumstances of the case, 
and with any sober construction which can be given to that treaty, 
that he desires to be excused from seriously examining its validity. 
From this contemptuous reference to a position to which he had 
subscribed without hinting an objection, and which he cannot an- 
swer, would not one imagine that the treaty of 1783 was a capitula- 
tion of vanquished subjects at the feet of a victorious and magnani- 
mous master ? Mr. Russell's spirit of independence, like his 
patriotism, is bold and intrepid in generalities, pliant and submissive 
in particulars. He gravely tells you, that until the Revolution, the 
fishing liberties of the colonies were held at the bare pleasure of 
the crown. He is so anxious for the repurchase of our forfeited 
fishing liberties, that he is willing to give for them an equivalent 
zoherever it maybe found ; provided always, that it shall not be the 
continuance of a harmless right to travel upon a Western highway. 
He disclaims all pretension to a liberty of his country stipulated in 
a treaty, unless as a gracious temporary donation from the bounty of 
his Britannic majesty, which, at the first blast of war, the monarch 
had rightfully resumed ; and although he has signed his name with 
his colleagues to numerous papers claiming it as a permanent stipu- 
lated right, unalienable but by our own renunciation, and in no wise 
held at the will of the British king, he will not be thought so simple 
as to have believed a word of what he has concurred in saying, or 
to have imagined that at the treaty of 1783, the situation of the par- 
ties was such that the United States could bargain for the fishing 
liberties, or receive them otherwise than as precarious and tempo- 
rary grants, resumable at the will of the grantor, so as to leave us 
" without any title to them whatsoever." Was Mr. Russell ignorant, 
that through a large portion of the Revolutionary war, it was a de- 
liberate and determined purpose of Congress that the United States 
should include the northern British provinces ? That express pro- 
vision for the admission of Canada into the Union, was made, in the 
Confederation of 1781 ? That, finally, when Congress prescribed 
the boundary line, which, for the sake of peace, they would ac- 
cept, and which was that stipulated in the treaty, they passed va- 
rious resolutions, declaring the rights of the United States in the 
fisheries, and the necessity of stipulating for them, if possible, by 
the treaty ; but that under no circumstances, whatever, were they 
to be given up ? That ia all the deliberations of Congress the ne- 
cessity of this reservation was avowedly connected with the aban- 
donment of the pretension to include all the northern provinces in 
the Confederation ? That the terms of the treaty of 1783, or ra- 
ther of the preliminaries of 1782, which were word for word the 
same, were almost entirely dictated by the United States ? That 
this very third article, securing the fisheries, and that very portion 
of it stipulating for the liberty within British jurisdiction, was made 
a sine qua non, by the American commissioners, two of whom ex- 
pressly declared that they would not sign the treaty without it ? and, 
to solve Mr. Russell's scruples, whether an interest of the State of 



227 

Massachusetts is an interest of the whole Union — that one of those 
two commissioners was a citizen of South-Carolina ? If Mr. Rus- 
sell is ignorant of all this, it only shows his incompetency to give 
any opinion the subject. If he is not, with what colour of justice 
can he pretend, from the relative situation of the parties to the 
treaty of 1783, that the pretension of having reserved the fishing 
liberty as a permanent participation of jurisdiction, while abandon- 
ing the claim to the territory itself, was a vain-glorious boast, too 
ridiculous to deserve an answer ? 

Mr. Russell does not leave us, however, to indirect inferences, 
for the conclusion, that in his estimates, a great interest of Massa- 
chusetts was of none to the rest of the Union ; for he expressly 
says, in his original letter of 11th February, 1815, and in his se- 
cond revision of it, published in the National Gazette of lOth May, 
that the people of the whole Western Country, the " unoffending 
•' citizens of an immense tract of territory," were " not at a^jl 
*' benefited by the fishing privilege." 

In the revision of the duplicate, for the eye of the House of Re- 
presentatives, and of the nation, made in 1822, this passage is one 
of those which appears to have smitten the conscience of the writ- 
er ; for in that version, he qualified the words not at all, by adding 
to them, " or but faintly " so that it reads, " the unofl'ending citi- 
" zens of an immense tract of territory, jwtat all, or but faintly, 
•• benefited by the fishing privilege,'''' but then again, as if grudging 
even this concession to the fishermen, he takes care in the same 
sentence to reduce it in degree as much as he enlarges it in ex- 
tent, by adding to his " doubtful accommodation of a few fisher- 
'* men," the words " annually decreasing in number." 

It was not so that the patriots and sages of our Revolution were 
wont to reason or to feel. On the 19th of June, 1779, a resolution 
was moved in Congress, by Mr. Gerry — " Tliat it is essential to 
" the welfare of these United States, that the inhabitants thereof, 
" at the expiration of the war, should continue to enjoy the free 
" and undisturbed exercise of their common right to fish on the 
" Banks of Newfoundland, and the other fishing banks and seas of 
" North America, preserving inviolate the treaties between France 
" and the said States." 

In the debate upon this resolution, a motion was made by Mr. 
John Dickinson, to insert the word all, before " these United 
States," and the word was inserted by a vote of ten States out of 
twelve. And so, on the 24th of June, the resolution passed — that 
it was essential to the welfare of all these United States, that they 
should continue to enjoy the fisheries after the war. 

It is, indeed, only upon the principle that an interest important to 
one section of the Union, is and ought to be considered and sup- 
ported as the interest of the whole, that a right of excluding British 
subjects from the navigation of the Mississippi, could be claimtu or 
fontended for, as the interest of the whole Union. It is an inte.ost, 
ivhothpr great or «rriall, fvsentiallv local, and admitting to (he fullest 



228 ^^^ 

extent, thai iFis, tierertheless, an interest of the whole Union, 1 
only claim that other interests, alike local in their exercise, should 
Ije entitled to the same benefit. If the gain by the war, of a right 
to interdict British subjects from descending the Mississippi river, 
had been to the people of the West an object of profit as great as 
the privation of the fishing liberties by the same war would have 
been to the people of the East an object of loss, the interests, as 
concerned the whole, would have been equally balanced ; but in- 
asmuch as the duty of preserving possessions already and before 
enjoyed, is paramount to that of making new acquisitions, the prin- 
ciple of equity, as well as the spirit of union, would have dictated 
as the true policy, that of maintaining both interests in the state in 
which they had been before the war, rather than that of sacrificing 
one part of the Union for the profit of another. 

If the comparative value of the two interests had been as dis- 
proportionate as they have been represented by Mr. Russell, and 
the balance of value had been on the side to which he assigns it, 
still the question of right, remaining the same, the small interest of 
the East could not with justice have been sacrificed to the greater 
interest of the West, without compensation. For although the 
whole Union may possess the power of preferring the interests of 
the many to those of the few, they have no power of arbitrary dis- 
posal over the liberties of the smallest portion of the community, 
if, by a solemn article of the Constitution, it is provided that the 
private property of the humblest individual shall not be taken for 
public use, without just compensation, how much more imperious 
is the prohibition of taking away the scanty and hard-earned live- 
lihood of a few fishermen, even were they annually decreasing in 
number, to bestow new and exclusive benefits upon a distant portion 
of population, without compensation to the indigent, without conso- 
lation to the bereaved sufterer. 



22$ 



CONCLUSION, 

The interests of the West are the interests of the whole Union— 
and so are' the interests of the East ; — and let the statesmen who 
are the servants of the whole, beware of setting them in conflict 
with each other. A review of these papers will show that the in- 
terest really at stake in the negotiation of Ghent, a deep and import- 
ant stake, was an interest of the East ; that there was no Western 
interest affected by the article first proposed by Mr. Gallatin, or by 
the amendment finally offered to the British plenipotentiaries at his 
proposal, and rejected ; that the only plausible objection to it, rest- 
ed upon a gratuitous assumption, contrary to all reason and expe- 
rience, that it would have given a right of access to, and of inter- 
course with, our Indians, to the British. This, the British had 
possessed by another article of another treaty, acknowledged to be 
extinguished by the war — but it would no more have been granted 
to them, by a right to navigate the Mississippi, than by a right to 
enter the harbour of New-York. The whole argument rested npon 
a fallacy; a mis-statement of the question. Happy would it have 
been for Mr. Russell, if, after assenting and pledging his signatures 
to the decision of the majority, he had as cautiously withheld from 
his government, and his country, the allegation of his reasons for 
having voted against it, as he did at the time of the discussion, from 
his colleagues. But, in the vehemence of his zeal to vindicate his 
motives for one unfortunate vote at Ghent, which but for himself 
would probably never have been known to the world, he has been 
necessitated to assert principles of international and municipal law, 
and to put forth statements as of fact, mote unsubstantial than the 
pageant of a vision. He has been reduced to the melancholy office 
of misrepresenting the subject of which he treats, the conduct and 
sentiments of his colleagues in a great national trust and his own. 
He has been compelled to disavow his own signatures, to contradict 
his own assertions, and to charge himself with his own interpola- 
tions. He has been forced to enter the lists as the champion of his 
country's enemy, upon a cause which he had been specially entrust- 
ed to defend and maintain — to allege the forfeiture of liberties which 
he had been specially instructed not to surrender — to magnify by 
boundless exaggerations, an ideal, and to depreciate in equal pro- 
portion, a real, interest of his country — to profess profound re- 
spect for the integrity and talents of men, while secretly denouncing 
their conduct as treacherous and absurd — and, finally, to traduce 
before the Representative Assembly of the nation, the character of 
the absent, and the memory of the dead. 

It has been my duty, not only in justice to my own character and 
to that of the colleagues with whom I acted, but in respectful defe- 
rence to the opinion of that nation of which we were, and two of 
us still are, the sprvants, to justify the rondurt thus deno'inred in 

oq 



23i> 

the face of the country —and to prove that the letter which contaiu- 
ed thnt denunciation was a tissue of misreprenentations. The at*- 
tack of Mr. Russell was at first secret — addressed to the Execu- 
tive officer of the administration, at the head of the department, un- 
der whose instructions the mission at Ghent had acted. It was 
made under the veil of concealment, and in the form of a private 
letter. In that respect it had failed of its object. It had neither 
made the Executive a convert to its doctrines, nor impaired his ■ 
confidence in the members of the majority at Ghent. Defeated in 
this purpose, after a lapse ofseven years, Mr. Russell is persuaded 
to believe that he can turn his letter to account, especially with the 
aid of such corrections of the copy in possession as the supposed loss 
of the original would enable him to make without detection, by bring- 
ing it before the Legislative Assembly of the Union. Foiled in 
this assault, by the discovery of the original, he steals a march upon 
refutation and exposure, by publishing a second variety of his let- 
ter, in a newspaper ; and when the day of retribution comes, dis- 
closing every step of his march on this winding stair, he turns upon 
me, with the charge ofhaving, by the use of disingenuous artifices, led 
him unawiires into the disclosure of a private letter, never intended 
for the public, and seduced him to present as a duplicate, what he had 
not intended to exhibit as such. To this new separate and person- 
al charge, I have replied, by proving the paper which contains it 
to be, like the letter from Paris, a tissue of misrepresentations. — = 
For the justification of myself, and of my colleagues at Ghent, 
nothing further was necessary. But the letter of Mr. Russell from 
Paris, contains doctrines with reference to law, and statements 
with reference to facts, involving the rights, the harmony, and the 
peace, of this Union. 

** Dangerous conceits are in tiieir nature poisonsJ^ 

If the doctrines of Mr. Russell are true, the liberties of the peo- 
ple of the United States in the Newfoundland, Gulf of St. Law- 
rence, and Labrador fisheries, are at this day held by no better 
tenure than the pleasure of the king of Great Britain, and will be 
abrogated by the first act of hostility between the two nations. 

If his statements are true, those liberties are the mere accommo- 
dation of a few fishermen, annually decreasing in number, too 
worthless to be accounted to the rest of the nation of any benefit 
at all. 

If his statements are true, the propositions made by the Ameri- 
can to the Biitish plenipotentiaries, on the 1st of December, 1814, 
gave unrestrai7ied and undefined access for the British to the Indians 
within our territories — laid our country bare to swarms of British 
smugglers, and British emissaries — and exposed the unoffending 
citizens of an immense territory to all the horrors of savage warfare. 

I now submit to the deliberate judgment of the nation, whether 
I have not proved that these doctrines and statements are equally 
and utterly without foundation— That the rights and liberties in the 



231 

fisheries, are held at the will, not of the king of Great Britain, but 
of the people of the United States themselves, foanded upon na- 
tional right, unbroken possession, and irrevocable acknowledgment 
— That their value, both immediate and remote, direct and conse- 
quential, is immensely important, not only to the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, but to the whole Union — That the proposition made 
to the British plenipotentiaries, on the 1st of December, 1814, 
would, if accepted, have given to the British, instead of an unre- 
strained and undefined access to our Indians, no access to them 
whatever — That it would have given them access, even to the 
Mississippi river, only from a single spot in the British territories ; 
and a right to descend the river only with merchandise upon which 
the duties should have been paid, and subject to all the custom- 
house regulations. 

The question in relation to the Mississippi, can never be revived. 
That spectre is forever laid. Great Britain has not only disavowed 
the claim to it which we wotild have admitted as valid, she has 
abandoned that upon which she herself exclusively rested it. Ot 
its value, in confirmation of the opinions which I have expressed, 
I have given extracts from the debates in parliament, on the peace 
of 1782, which show how it was estimated by her greatest states- 
men at that time. Those estimates had been confirmed by an ex- 
perience of thirty years. The slumbers of the unoffending citizens 
of the Western Country, can, therefore, never more be, if they 
ever were, disquieted by the visits of this apparition to the 
glimpses of the moon. But the day may come, though 1 trust it is 
far remote, when the title to our fishing liberties may again be in 
peril as imminent as it was at the negotiation of Ghent. And if, in 
that day, the American statesmen who may be charged with the de- 
fence and support of the rights, liberties, and interests of their 
country, should deem il among the qualifications for their office to 
possess some knowledge of the laws of nations, some acquaintance 
with the history of their country, and some patriotism more com- 
prehensive than party spirit or sectional prejudice ever gave or 
ever can give, I trust in God that their proficiency will have led 
them to the discovery, that all treaties, and all articles of treaties, 
and all liberties recognised in treaties, are not abrogated by war ; 
that our fishing liberties were neither before nor since the Revolu- 
tionary war, held at the mere pleasure of the British crown ; and 
that the lawful interests and possessions of one section of the Union 
are not to be sacrified for the imaginary profit of another, either by 
disparaging their value, or by casting them away as the interests oi 
« disuffected part of the countrij. 



APPENDIX 



/. Western Commentaries. 

In the remarks upon Mr. Russell's letter and duplicate, which 
vyere submitted to the House of Representatives, I expressed the 
most unqualified confidence in the justice of the West, and my en- 
tire conviction that however justly the inhabitants of that portion 
of the Union might have been incensed against the majority of the 
Ghent mission, upon the statements and representations of those 
letters, yet that when the plain unvarnished tale of real fact should 
be laid before them, they would not only acquit the majority of any 
intended sacrifice of their interests, but would find in the measure 
itself, distinctly disclosed to them in its own nature, nothing to dis- 
approve. In every part of this Union, when the whole truth can 
once be exhibited to the people, there is a rectitude of public opi- 
nion which neither individual enmity, local prejudices, nor party 
rancour can withstand or control. Upon this public virtue of my 
country I have ever relied, nor has it now, nor ever disappointed me. 
I have the satisfaction of knowing from various sources of informa- 
tion, public and private, that the general sentiment of the Western 
Country, wherever the Remarks as well as the Letters have been 
read, has done justice to the intentions of the majority, as w^U as 
to the motives of Mr. Russell. 

Yet, since the communication of his Letters to the House of Re- 
presentatives, the uses for which it was supposed the production 
of them was intended, and to which they were adapted, have 
not been altogether abandoned in some parts of the Western 
Country. The St. Louis Enquirer has pursued this purpose, in 
the simplest form, by publishing the message of the President of 
the United States to the House of Representatives of 7th May ; 
and Mr. Russell's Private letter, and by suppressing the Duplicate 
and the Remarks. 

In the Kentucky Reporter, published in Lexington, and in the 
Argus of Western America, published at Frankfort, various jjubli- 
cations have appeared, exhibiting similar views of the subject, re- 
presenting the proposition made to the British plenipotentiaries, 
on the 1st of December. 1814, as a very grievous offence, and 
ascribing it exclusively to me. The subject has, however, been 



233 

presented in a manner more impartial, in the Louisville Public Ad- 
vertiser, where, among other things, it has been inquired how, if the 
proposal was so very exceptionable it could, under any circum- 
stances have received the sanction or signature of Mr. Cl;iy ? 

The following editorial article in the Frankfort Argus, of ]81h 
July, seems intended to answer that question, and although con- 
taining some severe strictures upon " the Secretary," mingles with 
them some candid admissions, in a spirit upon which 1 would with 
equal candour animadvert. 

From the Argus of Western America, Frankfort, Kentucky, 18th July, 18^2. 

THE GHENT MISSION. 

" Mr. Pena does not understand the circumstances attending the 
Ghent negotiation, or he wilfully conceals the truth. 

'■ The first instructions given to our commissioners were, that 
they should not agree to any stipulation by which the pre-existing 
right of British subjects to trade with the Indians living within our 
territories, should be revived. The object of this instruction was 
to cut off the means of British influence among the Indians, which 
we had felt so fatally in that war. 

" While acting under these instructions, it was proposed by Mr. 
Gallatin to offer the British the free navigation of the Mississippi, 
with access to it through our territories, on condition that the liber- 
ty to take and cure fish on the coast within the exclusive jurisdiction 
of the British colonies, should be continued to the citizens of the 
United States. This proposition was strenuously opposed by Mr. 
Clay, on the ground that it would give the British those very means 
of influence over the Indians of which it was the object of the go- 
vernment to deprive them, as evinced by their instructions. At 
first Gallatin, Adams, and Bayard, were favourable to the proposi- 
tion, and Clay and Russell against it. In the end, however, Bayard 
changed sides, and it was rejected. Of course, no such proposition 
was made at that time. 

" Subsequently, however, the overthrow of Napoleon having 
left us to contend single-handed with the undivided power of Great 
Britain, our government thought proper to change the terms offer- 
ed to the British government, and accordingly sent additional in- 
structions to Ghent, directing our commissioners to make a peace 
if practicable, upon the simple condition, that each party should 
be placed in the same situation in which the war found them. 

" At the commencement of the war, the British had a right by- 
treaty, not only to navigate the Mississippi, but to trade with all 
our western Indians. Of course our commissioners were instructed 
to consent to the continuance of this right, if no better terms could 
be procured. Under these instructions a proposition relative to 
the Mississippi and the fisheries, similar to that which had beeri 
rejected, was again presented, adopted, and sent to the British 
commissioners. But it did not restore the right to navigate thf 



234 

Mississippi ill as full a manner as the British governmeat desired, 
and on that account, we presume, was rejected. 

"Now we beheve the truth to be, thai Mr. Clay still opposed 
this proposition, believing that it never ought to be made by our 
government, and perhaps was not necessaiy to the conclusion of 
the peace. But as the government had authorized a treaty to be 
made on the status ante belhun, and as the proposition amounted to 
nothing more, he did not refuse to sign his name to the letter 
which contained not only that, but all the other propositions made 
in the treat}'. 

" The Secretary, in his strictures, confounds together the dis- 
©ussions which took place before and after ibe reception of the 
additional instructions, by which means more discriminating heads 
than Penn's have been deceived. 

" The commissioners at Ghent assumed the principle, that the 
right to the tisheries in British waters, on our side, and the right to 
navigate the Mississippi, on their side, secured by the treaty of '83, 
were not abrogated by the war, but continued in full force without 
any new stipulation at the peace. The Secretary calls this the 
American side of the argument, and exults, with many thanks to 
God, that it has been sustained through subsequent negotiations, 
and particularly in forming the convention with Great Britain in 
1818. Surely this exultation is not only without cause, but con- 
trary to reason. H the principle so strenuously asserted by him 
be correct, what have we gained by it ? At the close of the war 
our right to the fisheries and the British right to navigate the Alis- 
sissippi, existed to the full extent at which they were secured by 
the treaty of '83, and would have continued so to exist without any 
additional stipulation until this moment. But the convention of 
1818, restricts our fishing liberties, and says not a word abotit the 
navigation of the Mississippi. Hence, if the Secretary's position 
be sound, we have lost by it a part of our fishing hberties, and 
the British retain the right to navigate the iVIississippi in its fullest 
extent ! How can the Secretary consistently say, that they abandon- 
ed this right in the convention of 1818, when not a word is said 
about it in that compact ? If he were President and the British 
were to claim the right to navigate the Mississippi to-morrow, he 
would be obliged to grant their claim valid or contradict his own 
favourite principle ! !'' 

Remarks on the Above Editorial Article. 

This article admits that Mr. Clay did not refuse to sign his name 
to the proposition made to the British plenipotentiaries on the 1st 
of December, 1814, of confirming to the British the right of navi- 
gating the Mississippi. It admits that the proposition was fully 
warranted by the instructions of 19th October, 1814, and formally 
assigns them, as his motive for not refusing his assent to the pro- 
posal. It does, indeed, say that he believed the proposition 



235 

H*ver ought td be made by our government, and perhaps was uot 
necessary to the conclusion of the peace. The perhaps it was not, 
of course implies that perhaps it was necessary to the conclu 
sion of the peace, and in candid reasoning is of itself sufficient to 
justify the majority in the determination to make the proposal, 
which they did believe to be necessary. 

In transferring the blame, whatever it might be, of making the. 
proposition, from the majority' of the mission, who only executed, 
to the government which issued the instructions, under which Mr. 
Clay did not refuse his signature, a new field of argument is opened, 
not very reconcileable with any portion of Mr. Russell's papers 
on this subject. Mr. Russell's duplicate alleges that the proposi- 
tion was in positive and wilful violation of instructions, explicit and 
implicit. Mr. Russell in the Boston Statesman of 27th June last, 
affirms that the instructions of 19th October, 1814, had no effect 
xvhatever on the proposition to the British plenipotentiaries of 1st 
December ; that no vote in the mission was taken after the in- 
structions of 19th October were received — and he appeals to Mr. 
Clay to confirm this statement. 

It is, to be sure, a matter of opinion, whether the government 
ought to have given the instructions of 19th October, 1814, or not, 
upon which every member of the Ghent mission, individually, 
had the right of entertaining his own opinion. There may be ex- 
treme cases in which a public minister would be justified in refus- 
ing his signature to a proposition warranted or even required by 
the instructions of his government: a member of a commission may 
indulge himself in this respect with a much greater latitude than a 
single plenipotentiary, for the obvious reason that the instructions 
may be executed without his assent. Mr. Clay, therefore, might 
have withheld his signature from the proposition which was made, 
on the 1st of December, 1814, as he had said he should withhold it 
from that which had been voted on the 5lh of November. The 
reason assigned in the editorial article of the Argus, for his having 
taken a different course, namely, the receipt in the interval be- 
tween the two periods of the new instructions from the government, 
is amply sufficient to justify him for yielding his assent at last, but 
in candid reasoning, if it justified him in pledging his signature to 
a measure which he disapproved, it surely more than justified the 
majority, in determining to offer a proposition, which they approv- 
ed, and for which they had been prepared even before those in- 
structions had been received. 

The editorial article in the Argus, admits, in amplest form, that 
at the commencement of the war, the British had the right to na- 
vigate the Mississippi, and that the commissioners were instructed 
to consent to the continuance of this right, if no better terms 
eould be procured. Rut it intimates the belief of Mr. Clay, that 
the government ought never to have issued such instructions. Yet 
the reason stated in the editorial article itieell", as the inducing mo- 
tive of the government to this measure, i* weighty, and whoever 



236 

Will duly consider the situation and circumstances of this nation and 
its gov ernment, in October, 1814, will, I believe, not be very ready 
to join in a censure upon the government for offering a peace on the 
basis of the state before the war. There was then a heavy re- 
sponsibility, both upon the government and upon the mission at 
Ghent, that the war should be concluded. This nation would have 
ill-brooked a rupture of the negotiation upon light or trivial causes, 
and if it had been broken oiT upon a refusal to continue to the Bri- 
tish a mere nominal right to navigate the Mississippi, possessed by 
them and harmless to us until the war had begun, the government 
and the mission would have had a very different task to justify 
themselves to this country, from that which they now have. If, 
instead of writing his letter of 11th February, 1815, from Paris, 
Mr. Russell had brought the substance of it home in his pockety 
with the war still raging, and he had said, We have not concluded 
the peace — we have broken off the negotiation — but here are our 
reasons — producing his letter of seven sheets against the Mississip- 
pi navigation, and the fisheries — What would the nation and the 
world have said of the American government and the American 
mission at Ghent? After the responsibility has been removed, 
and the peace concluded, it is very easy to "enjoy the good and 
Cavil the conditions" — but in this case, measure still harder is dealt 
out to the government and the majority of the mission : after the 
good is secured, the cavil is against conditions not annexed to it, 
but merely once proposed — not against an actual stipulation, but 
against a rejected offer — against a possibility extinct. 

It is sufficient for the justification of the majority of the mission 
that it was authorized, and that they believed it to be required by 
their instructions. But I cannot pass over this censure upon the 
government for issuing the instructions themselves, without notice. 
Far from deeming them blameable, I believe them to have been 
wise and meritorious. The instructions not to surrender the fish- 
eries, even at the hazard of breaking off the negotiation, mani' 
fested a sensibility congenial to the true and essential interests of 
the country. I have in these papers furnished proof that the in- 
terest in the fisheries at stake in the negotiation, was great and im- 
portant. The disquisitions in the Western newspapers on this 
subject, dwell largely upon the state of politics then prevailing in 
the Eastern section of the Union. This is an invidious topic, and I 
wish to dismiss it, with this observation, that the administration of 
Mr. Madison could not have honoured itself more than by maintain- 
ing with inflexible energy against the enemy, the special interest of 
that portion of the Union which had been most opposed to the war. 
But had that illustrious statesman and patriot suffered himself on 
that occasion to be influenced by narrower considerations, it could 
not escape him, thut however exceptionable the political course of 
the State of Massachusetts might be, the portion of the people, most 
particularly interested in these fisheries, neither countenanced nor 
supported it. They had been the first, and were among the great- 



t3l 

est sufterers by the war, and by the restrictive measures that pre 
ceded — and they were among the most effective supporters of the 
war, and of the honour of the nation in the conduct of it. To have 
sacrificed their hberties in the fishery, would have been a stain upon 
ihe gratitude, no less than upon the justice, of the American go- 
vernment. The instruction to accept a peace upon the basis of the 
state before the war, was equally well considered. There was no 
time at Ghent when the British plenipotentiaries would have ac- 
cepted it. The British government, at that time, had evidently 
taken a bias, from which nothing could divert them, and which was 
to appear to the world as if they had gained something by the war. 
The state before the war, upo7i all ihe points of difference, was ac- 
tually offered to them, and they rejected it. After commencing 
the negotiation with the loftiest pretensions of conquest, they finally 
settled down into the determination merely to keep Moose Island, 
and the fisheries, to themselves. This was the object of their 
deepest solicitude. Their efforts to obtain our acquiescence in 
their pretension that the fishing liberties had been forfeited by the 
war, were unwearied. They presented it to us in every form that 
ingenuity could devise. It was the first stumbling block, and the 
last obstacle to the conclusion of the treaty. Their pretension was 
announced as a preliminary, at the beginning of the first conference, 
and their article proposing a future negotiation to treat for a revival 
of the liberty, was the last point from which they receded. But 
the wisdom and the importance of the instruction to the American 
mission, to agree to a peace on the basis of the state before the 
war, was this : it enabled them to avoid a rupture of the negotia- 
tion upon points of minor importance, and upon which the spirit of 
the country might not have been prepared to support the govern- 
ment. If upon any of the articles of the project in discussion, the 
parties had come to an absolute splitting point, as upon many arti- 
cles they actually did, the American mission always had the general 
itate before the war, to offer as an alternative, which would save 
them and the country from the danger of breaking off' the negotia- 
tion upon any particular article, or any point of less than universal 
interest. With an enemy whose policy might he really to continue 
the war, but to throw the blame of it upon us, there was a hazard 
in adhering inflexibly to any OHe point of difference. By the pow- 
er of offering the general state before the war, if the negotiation 
was to be broken off, it would not be in the power of the enemy 
to put us in the wrong for the rupture ; and with that general prin- 
ciple, always in reserve, we were enabled to insist more persever- 
ingly upon every particular article in discussion. 

The editorial article in the Argus charges " the Secretary'''' with 
confounding, in his strictures (on the duplicate letters,) the discus- 
sions which took place before, and after, the reception of the addi- 
tional instructions, by which means, it says, more discriminating 
heads than Penn's [the editor of the Louisville Public Advertiser,] 
have been deceived - 

30 



238 

It is not the Secretafy, but Mr. Russell, who confounds these 
preceding and subsequent discussions. The joint despatch of 25th 
December, 1814, and Mr. Russell's separate letter of the same 
date, say not a word of the discussions prior to the receipt of the 
new instructions. They refer exclusively to the vote taken on the 
29th of November, and to the proposition actually made on the 1st 
of December. Mr. Russell's letter from Paris, confounds together 
the preceding and subsequent discussions. His duplicate brings in 
the cancelled instructions, as violated by the proposal actually made 
on the first of December, and his publicarion in the Boston States- 
man of 27th June, affirms, that no vote -oaas taken after the receipt 
of the new instructions ; and calls upon Mr. Clay to confirm the 
assertion. It is hoped that the discriminaling heads will find that 
in these pages, the Secretary has been suQiciently explicit in dis- 
tinguishing between the first and second votes, and between the 
discussions upon both of them. 

The editorial paper e-tates that the article first proposed by Mr. 
Gallatin, and voted by the majority, was finally rejected, because 
Mr. Bayard changed sides. This is not altogether exact. If there 
was any change of sides, it was by Mr. Clay He brought fcJrward 
on the 7th of November, as a substitute for Mr. Gallatin's article, 
which had been voted on the 5th, the very same proposition which 
I had offered to take instead of Mr. Gallatin's article, before the 
vote upon it had been taken, but which Mr. Clay had not then been 
prepared to accept. Upon this new proposal of Mr. Clay,' Mr. 
Bayard agreed, /or the sake of unanimity, to take it instead of Mr. 
Gallatin's article ; and so did I, and so did Mr. Gallatin himself. 
Mr. Bayard, of course, afterwards voted, on the 29th of Novem- 
ber, for the proposition which was actually made on the 1st of De- 
cember. 

The editorial article of the Argus, after stating that the commis- 
j^ioners at Ghent assumed the principle, that the right to the fish- 
eries in British waters, on our side, and the right to navigate the 
Mississippi, on their side, secured by the treaty of '83, were not 
abrogated by the war, but continued in full force, without any new 
stipulation at the peace, observes, that " the Secretary" calls this 
" the American side of the argument,'''' and exults, with many thanks 
to God, that it has been sustained through subsequent negotiations, 
and particularly in forming the convention with Great Britain in 
1818. The writer in the Argus appears to be chagrined at this ex- 
ultation of the Secretary, and exceedingly anxious to deprive him 
of his satisfaction. But in the first place, this statement of the 
principle assumed by the commissioners at Ghent is again not alto- 
gether exact. The principle assumed by them, was in these 
words, drawn up by Mr. Clay : 

" In answer to the declaration made by the British plenipoten- 
" tiaries, respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, referring to whal 
" passed in the conference of the 9th August, can only state, that 
" they are not authorized to bring into discussion any of the right? 



239 

*' or liberties which the United States have heretofore enjuyed m 
" relation thereto. From their nature, and from the peculiar cha- 
" racter of the treaty of 1783, by which they were recognised, no 
*' further stipulation has been deemed necessary by the govern- 
*' ment of the United States to entitle them to the full enjoyment of 
« all of them." 

This principle, thus assumed, the Secretary does call the Ameri- 
can side of the argument, and with his thanks to God, that it was as- 
sumed, and has since been maintained, against the British side of the 
argument, announced in the conference of 8th August, 1814, and 
to which this paragraph was the formal answer, the Secretary would 
not less heartily add his thanks to Mr. Clay, for having made this 
principle his own, by proposing it to the mission, by signing the 
note in which it was contained, and by maintaining it against the 
IBritish plenipotentiaries, as long as it was necessary for the great 
interest at stake upon it, that he should maintain it. The Secre- 
tary would readily call it Mr. Clay's side of the argument, if he had 
reason to suppose it as unequivocally that gentleman's individual, 
as he had made it his official, opinion. The Secretary himself, 
not only pledged to it his official signature, but firmly believed, and 
still firmly believes it sound — warranted by the laws of nations, 
and sanctioned by the most eminent writers on international juris- 
prudence, as well as by many of the mo-^t eminent lawyers and 
Statesmen of Great Britain. The inaccuracy of the statement in 
the editorial article of the Argus, is in representing the commis- 
sioners as having assumed the principle, in its application to the 
British right of navigating the Mississippi, as well as in relation to 
the fisheries, and on this inaccuracy is founded the censure of the 
Secretary for calling it the American side of the argument. 

The commissioners assumed the principle, only as it was pre- 
sented by Mr. Clay, and only in relation to the fisheries. It was 
emphatically the Jimerican side of the argument, and still continued 
so, when afterwards the British plenipotentiaries demanded a stipu- 
lation in the treaty, that British subjects should enjoy the right of 
navigating the Mississippi, and access to it for that purpose through 
our territories. The American commissioners then said to them .- 
If you admit our principle, you need no new stipulation to secure 
to you this right ; we are willing, however, to recognise it by a new 
article, declaratory of both rights. If you reject it, you have no 
foundation to claim a right of navigating the Mississippi, and, there- 
fore, no pretence for asking it by a new stipulation. The British 
plenipotentiaries could not extricate themselves from this dilemma. 
They said they claimed the right of navigation, as an equivalent for 
abandoning their line of boundary to the Mississippi, and agreeing 
to the 49th parallel of latitude. We offered them to leave the 
boundary as it was — which they finally accepted. Throughout 
the whole discussion, the principle assumed by the American com- 
missioners, was the American side of the argument. 

It wa'i still so in th^" negotiation? after the peace whirh terminated 



240 

in the convention of 1818, and remains the American side of the 
argument to this day. When, in the summer of 1813, British arm- 
ed cruisers warned all American fishing vessels on the coast of No- 
va-Scotia to a distance of sixty miles Irom the shores, they very 
significantly proved what the British government had meant by their 
side of the argument, and in entering upon the negotiation, imme- 
diately afterwards and inconsequence of that event, the Secretary 
may be allowed to speak with confidence when he says, that had it 
not been for the principle assumed by the commissioners at Ghent, 
he could not have taken the first step in it — he could not have al- 
leged a cause of complaint — sixty miles was largely xfithin the ex- 
tent of exclusive British jurisdiction, as to those fisheries, if our li- 
berties in them had been abrogated by the war ; and the American 
minister in England would have had no more right to complain of 
this warning, or of any exclusion by British cruisers of American 
fishing vessels from any part of the Newfoundland fisheries, than of 
the seizure of an American vessel in the port of Liverpool for a 
manifest violation of the British revenue laws. 

It was upon the rights and liberties, in these fisheries, as recog- 
nised in the treaty of 1783, as unimpaired by the war of 1812, and 
as unabrogated, although no stipulation to confirm them had been 
inserted in the treaty of Ghent, that the American minister in Lon- 
don did complain of this warning and interdiction of the American 
fishermen. He recurred immediately to the principle asserted by 
the American commissioners at Ghent, at the proposal of Mr. Clay, 
and consigned in their note of 10th November, 1814. On that he 
vested the continued claimof the United States to all the rights and 
liberties in the fisheries, recognised in the treaty of 1783, and en- 
tered upon a full discussion of t!»e question with the British go- 
vernment. The result of that discussion, which was continued in 
the negotiation of the convention of 1818, appears in the first arti- 
cle of that convention. The editorial article in the Argus, says that 
this convention restricts our fishing liberties, and says not a word 
about the navigation of the Mississippi. The convention restricts 
the liberties in some small degree; but it enlarges them probably 
in a degree not less useful. It has secured the whole coast fishery 
of every part of the British dominions, except within three marine 
miles of the shores, with the liberty of using all the harbours, 
for shelter, for repairing damages, and for obtaining wood and wa- 
ter. It has secured the full participation in the Labrador fishery ; 
the most important part of the whole, and that of which it was at 
Ghent peculiarly the intention of the British government at all 
events to deprive us. This fishery cannot be prosecuted without 
the use of the neighbouring shores, for drying and curing the fish : 
it is chiefly carried on in boats, close into the shores, and the loss 
of it, even if the rest had been left unaff'ected by the same princi- 
ple, would have been a loss of more than half of the whole interest. 
Tite convention has also secured to us the right of drying and 
curing fish on a purt of (he island of Newfoundland, which had noii 



241 

been enjoyed under the treaty of 1783 : it has narrowed down the 
pretensions of exclusive territorial jurisdiction with reference to 
those fisheries, to three marine miles from the shores. Upon the 
whole, I consider this interest as secured by the convention of 
1818, in a manner as advantageous as it had been by the treaty of 
1783 ; we have gained by it, even of fishing liberties, perhaps a>5 
much as we have lost ; but if not, we have gained practically the 
benefit of the principle, that our liberties in the fisheries recognised 
by the treaty of 1783, were not abrogated by the war of 1812. If 
they had been, we never should have obtained, without a new war, 
any portion of them again. The error of the editorial article in 
the Argus, is in putting out of sight the difference between a con- 
tested and an uncontested right. After the conclusion of the peace 
of Ghent, according to the American side of the argument, and bv 
virtue of the principle, assumed at the proposal of Mr, Cla}^, the 
rights and liberties of the people of the United States in these 
fisheries, remained in full force, as they had been recognised bv 
the treaty of 1783. According to the British side of the argument, 
and to the doctrine of Mr. Russell's Letter from Paris, they were 
totally abrogated by the war. The letter says, in express terms, 
that the liberty was " entirely at an end ;" and, that we were left 
" without any title to it whatsoever.''^ If this was the real doctrine of 
the minority of the American mission at Ghent, has not the Secre- 
tary reason to exult, and to give many thanks to God, that instead 
of avowing it, they professed directly the contrary ? That Mr. 
Clay himself proposed to the mission, and the mission at his pro- 
posal adopted the opposite principle, the American side of the ar- 
gument. After the peace of Ghent, the right of the people of the 
United States to the fishing liberties was perfect, but it was contest- 
ed. There was a British side of the argument, and what we have 
gained by the convention of 1818, has been an adjustment of that 
contest, preserving essentially the whole interest that was in dis- 
pute. The first article of the convention is upon its face the ad 
justraent of a contested question. The documents of the negotia- 
tion prove how it was adjusted, and show that we obtained the ad- 
justment by maintaining our principle. On the principle of the let 
ter from Paris, there was no liberty to maintain, no right to assert, 
DO contest to adjust : the liberty was gone, irretrievably lost. 

The editorial article says, that " if the British were to claim the 
right to navigate the Mississippi to-morrow, the Secretary would 
be obliged to grant their claim valid or contradict his own favourite 
principle ! !" The double notes of admiration annexed to this 
closing period of the editorial article, indicate along cherished and 
intense desire to fasten upon the Secretary, in spite of all that he 
can say, the deep crimination of the dreadful consequences to 
which his.favourite principle might yet lead. Mr. Russell, too, has 
resorted to this forlorn hope of charge against the Secretary. My 
reply to it is this-^ 



242 

i hilt liic principle alluded to in ils application lo vmr iisbing li- 
t>erties, is my favourite principle, I admit, knowing as I do, that it 
has been the n>eans of saving them from total extinction. That it 
is my own principle, I have perhaps not more the right to say than 
that it was Mr. Clay's own principle : for it was at his proposal 
that it was assumed by the American mission at Ghent, and the pa- 
ragraph by which it was assumed, was drawn up by him. For all 
possible consequences in relation to the British right of navigating 
the Mississippi, which may flow froni the assumption of this prin- 
ciple. Mr. Clay so far as otficial acts and signatures can pledge, is 
as responsible as I am» 

But the truth is, that the principle can no longer be applied to 
the British right of navigating the Mississippi, because they them- 
selves have disclaimed it, and thereby renounced the right to the 
claim. The right once disclaimed, cannot again be resumed. It 
eould not be resumed even after a tacit renunciation — a disclaimer 
us still more. It was precisely because acquiescence on our part 
in the principle asserted by the British plenipotentiaries, in their 
notification of 8th August, would have been a surrender and tacit 
renunciation of the fishing liberties, that 1 deemed the counterno- 
tification on our part, or a new article indispensable. But in assert- 
ing a principle just and sound in itself, in defence of our own liber- 
ties, we are in nowise bound to force it upon Great Britain, in support 
of any right of hers ; and as she has chpsen to consider her right 
to navigate the Mississippi by virtue of the 8th article of the treaty 
of 1783, as abrogated by the war, we are neither bound to obtrude 
upon her that which she disclaims, nor to admit the claim, should 
she hereafter be disposed to retract the principle. 

But this is not all ; the editorial article asks " how can the Se-=i 
cretary consistently say that the British abandoned this right in the 
convention of 1818, when not a word is said about it in that com- 
pact ?" It is precisely because not a word is said in the compact about 
it, that the British have abandoned the right. By the second arti^ 
cle of the convention a new boundaiy line is stipulated, along the 
49th parallel of latitude, which of course cuts tliem off from the 
Sine to which they were before entitled to the Missif^sippi. Dis- 
claiming the right secured lo them by the 8lh article of the treaty 
of 1783, the only ground upon which they still claimed (he right, 
was by virtue of the line which brought them in contact with the 
river. At the negotiations of 1807, and at Ghent, they declined 
agreeing to the new line, unless with a reservation of the right to 
navigate the river, and of access to it, through our territories. 
They demanded the same thing at the negotiation of the convention 
of 1818, and presented an article to that effect. But they finally 
agreed to the new boundary line, without the reservation, and 
thereby abandoned their last claim to the right of navigating the 
river. 

The editorial article in the Argus, is sufficient to justify Mr, 
Ciav for his assent to, and concurrence with, all the measures 



243 

iagreed upon by the majority of the Ghent mission. His service* 
to the nation are sufficiently distinguished to enable him to dispense 
with the assistance of unjust aspersions upon others. 



//. Mr. Floyd's Letter. 
ii'iom th« Richmond Enquirer of 27th August, 1322. 
[othe Editors oj th-e Enquirer: 

I^^ew-Berne, Virginia, August 14, I82i>, 

Gentlemen : I am induced to write to you, impelled by the nu- 
merous editorial remarks which have issued from different parts of 
the Union, relating to the controversy between Messrs. Russell and 
Adams, involving me in a greater or less degree ; but more parti- 
f:uiarly from the unwarrantable assertions of Mr. Adams through- 
out his rejoinder. 

On entering into public life, \ formed a plan from which I de 
termined never to depart, unless for the strongest reasons ; and 
1 assure you, it is with pain and regret, I now deviate from that 
plan. When any thing occurs in my public conduct, if it concerns 
myself alone, I have been content to rest my claims to justice upon 
the decision of those with whom I act, entirely regardless whether 
the newspapers, or reporters to newspapers, either misunderstand 
me, misrepresent me, or do not hear me. 

In the commencement of this affair, I was not a little surprised 
to see the editorial remarks of the Weekly Register in concludino" 
the publication of the President's message with the letters of Mr. 
Russell and Mr. Adams, subjecting me to imputations of " elec- 
tioneering views" and the " getting up" this business : my surprise 
was not lessened to find any thing in my course, liable to such im- 
putations, as I have always felt the most perfect contidence in the 
correctness of my course : though 1 have too high an opinion of 
the correctness and integrity of the Weekly Register to believe 
these remarks were intended for any other purpose, than to give 
an honest opinion of the transaction as it appeared to him. 

With these feelings, as soon as I recovered from a severe illness, 
under which I was labouring when the Register was received, I 
wrote a statement of the whole matter, to the editor of that paper, 
whose independent republican course has impressed me with the 
most ftivourable sentiments of his rectitude and ability ; but, think- 
ing there would be an end to the aflair very soon, and that the op- 
portunities might offer elsewhere, of doing myself justice, I yield- 
ed to the suggestion of a friend in withholding it ; nor, do I think 
the necessity would now exist, had the whole of the debate been 
published, which took place in the House of Representatives upon 
'''io adoption of Mr. Fuller's rpiolntion, making the tinal call upon 



244 

the President for the papers ; which now appears to have been 
<1one at the instance of JVIr. Adams himself. 

There is certainly something very singular in this affair, that 
Mr. Adams, who has laboured with so much Zealand perseverance, 
to impress the nation with the belief that Mr. Russell is not correct 
in his statements, should, nevertheless, as zealously adhere to de- 
clarations equally injurious, and unfounded as it regards myself; 
to the end, it is presumed, to justify his own conduct in procuring 
Mr. Fuller to make the call which I had desisted from, and which 
it seems was so desirable to him as a mean of getting into the news- 
papers, — this, too. after Mr. Russell had said he knew nothing of 
my intention of making the request 1 did make. 

Mr. Adams, I had believed, was too well acquainted with eti- 
quette, to leave his lawful game, to send a shaft at me, however he 
mxght feel towards me ; but, since he has thought proper to do so, 
I must defend myself. 

Whatever a Secretary shall say of me, I think it but right, to 
hold him responsible ; nor will 1 consent that he shall ransack his 
department to find a clerk to prop his desires by a certificate. So 
far as it regards myself, I must protest against the certificates of 
clerks, who depend for their daily bread, upon the capricious 
smiles of a Secretary of a Department. I do not wish to be un- 
derstood as making any remark upon Mr. Adnms'8 certifying clerks. 
It is possible they may be respectable, I know nothing of them^ 
nor, can I, consistent with my ov/n self-approbation, know any body 
but Mr. Adams, who I presume, having reliance, and regardless of 
feelings or opinions, boldly and confidently, reiterates in his re- 
joinder, that Mr. Russell procured me, to subserve his purposes, 
and make the call in the House which I did make ; which assertion, 
I unequivocally pronounce to be utterly destitute of that verity 
which ought always to characterize assertions made to the public. 

The story is briefly this : 

Last winter was a year, at my lodgings, in conversation with 
/Some of my friends, we were discussing the advantages of the oc- 
cupation of the Oregon, or Columbia river, the v/ilue of the fur 
trade of our western rivers, the wealth to be derived from that 
trade in the Canton market, and the practicability of supplying the 
valley of the Mississippi with the manufactures of China by that 
route ; when one gentleman observed, that the Mississippi had 
been discussed at Ghent, and from the character of the gentlemen 
engaged in it, there was a strong probabihty, that, if I had that cor- 
respondence, I would obtain something, which might be useful to 
me. I had then presented to the House, my report upon the occu- 
pation of that river, and would have to make an exposition of the 
bill when it came up for discussion. 1 instantly determined to make 
the call, as the proper mode of getting the papers : but, I soon 
found my bill for its occupation, could not, from the place it held 
jn the orders of the day, be acted upon that session : I then deter- 
mined to postpone the call until the next session. Accordingly, on 



245 

the 17th of January last, I requested all the papers ; and on the 
23d of February, the President answered that request, taking more 
than a month to prepare a copy. 

Mr. Adams says, after commenting upon this, that, " it will be 
observed, that* nearly two months had intervened, between the 
report of the Ghent treaty documents to the House, and this se- 
cond call, which Mr. Russell has admitted was made as his sugges- 
tion." 

Mr. Adams knew very well, the papers were sent to the House 
on the 23d of February, and not only ordered to lie on the table, 
as he states, but likewise ordered to be printed: I had not an op- 
portunity of examining them until they were printed, which would 
of course require some days. But in that time, 1 had received 
intelligence of the afflictions of my fomily, and Mr. Adams does 
know, I obtained leave of absence for the remainder of the ses- 
sion, believing it not possible for me to return. 

I left this city, I believe, about the 13th of March, but my fami- 
ly being restored to health, I returned to Washington, and arrived, 
on Sunday, the 14th of April. I went into the House on the 15th, 
and on the 18th submitted the second resolution, calling specifically 
for Mr. Russell's letter ; that resolution was adopted on the 19th. 

The reason of this second call was, that, on examining the pa- 
pers, I could not find any thing 1 wanted, though I did perceive 
from Mr. Russell's letter, dated the 25th of December, from Ghent, 
that he intended to write fully, and naturally concluded he had 
done so, as he was a public man, and in the discharge, as I thought, 
of his duty ; and too, expected what I wanted was contained in 
that letter, to wit, touching the value of the Mississippi river. 

I will take no part in the controversy between Mr. Russell and 
Mr. Adamie, nor would I now have written, had not Mr. Adams 
gone out of his way, iu endeavouring to place me in an attitude, 
which he must know, nothing but his injustice could have exhibited 
me in. 

I am almost as much surprised at the memory of the friend of 
the National Intelligencer, as at all the rest of this affair : he has 
certainly reported to that paper as far as he went " substantially" 
what happened in that debate ; but the surprize is, that his me- 
mory fails at the precise point where my justification begins. I 
recollect what was said, and made these remarks, and nearly in 
these words : That I had made the previous calls, and had not re- 
newed it, as the letter wanted had been specifically desired, and 
the President already knew the wishes of the House, and might 
send it if he thought proper, as he was the judge of the propriety 
of doing so ; I did not think another resolution to the same effect 
would be consulting the dignity of the House ; and if the papers 
would produce misunderstanding and ill blood, between men high 
in office and pubhc esteem, which the President, who had the pa« 
pers seemed to insinuate, I would not be the means of producing 
that evil. What I wanted was the information, which I supposed tine 



24& 

papers to contain relative to the value of the Mississippi, which 
fjrould, according to my view of the occupation of the Columbia 
river, show the value of the trade to flow in that channel, which 
was to connect those two great rivers ; and that there could not 
be any thing difficult to comprehend in that. That if the President 
would tell the House such consequences would flow from the com- 
munication, and at the same time state, that copies of the papers 
would be furnished to any gentleman at the Department of State, 
who might desire them, was a thing left for him to justify and to re- 
concile : I wished myself to be correct, and said this for my ow!> 
justification, and to show my own consistency, and not the Presi- 
dent's. 

I will close these observations by observing to you, that I have 
seen in your paper a few days ago, the remarks contained in a 
Charleston journal. I cannot divine how the writer knew I had 
made a motion to refer the President's communication to my com- 
mittee, before it was read. I conclude, though, it is much after 
the disinterestedness of the times, and that a diplomatic mission to 
some of the new republics, may be the hoped reward of the hon- 
est exertions of the writer. How was that fact ascertained ? there 
?s no record showing whether the motion was made before the pa- 
pers were read or not — this minute fact is known to the writer so 
distant from Washington, who does not even know the part of the 
country I live in, as he states me to be a member from the west — 
it may be honest ignorance — I believe, though I did make the mo- 
tion to refer the papers, as soon as it was ascertained what the 
papers related to. This is every day's practice, and I have now 
papers referred to my committee which the House never saw, 
which contained information I had sought through the medium of 
the House, as I had done that, which was to be used when my bill 
was called up. I will say more, that if 1, by any proper act, 
could have prevented this affair, that I would have done so ; nor 
will I, either in public or in private, refrain from commenting upon 
the public conduct and opinions of any public man, who may be 
thought, or may think himself entitled to office. My opposition 
Jhas always been political, and directed by the ideas I entertain of 
Oie power which gentlemen may think themselves entitled to ex- 
ercise, under the constitution of the United States. I look upon that 
constitution as containing expressed grants of powerjand cannot ap- 
prove any opposite opinion. 

1, as a public man, am willing to be judged by this test, and when 
I, or others, cannot defend their opinion, injustice to the countrj', 
they ought to retire. In my public capacity I called upon the ex- 
ecutive branch of the government for papers expressly relating to 
a national transaction, and for public use ; and if evil has resulted ^ 
OF private letters been divulged, it cannot attach to me. 

I am, sirs, with great respect, your obedient servant, 

JOHN FLOYD^ 



247 

///. Mr. Fuller's Letter, 

From the Bostpn Patriot of 4th September, 1822. 

Boston, 3d SjeptembeR, 1822. 
To tli€ Editors of the Boston Patriot : 

Gentlemen : Having seen in the Richmond Enquirer of the 27th 
of August, a letter from Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, in which he speaks 
of the conduct of Mr. Adams " in procuring Mr. Fuller to make 
the cail" for Mr. Russell's letter and Mr. A.'s remarks in relation 
to the Ghent treaty, I am induced, with great reluctance, to ad- 
dress you a hne on that subject, for publication. My great aversion 
to appear, without evident necessity, in the newspapers, alone 
withheld me from this course, on observing that Mr. Russell, in his 
letter re -published in the National Intelligencer on the 3d of July, 
says Mr. Adams " sought for a member who would consent to make 
the call." — " To one member from Massachusetts, at least, he had 
applied in vain, before he finally succeeded in his object." 

It was perfectly obvious, on being informed by the President s 
message of the 4th of May, that Mr. Russell's private letter on the 
Ghe«t negotiation was to be seen by gentlemen who might call at 
the Department of State, that it would be immediately published in 
the newspapers. The message also stated the wish of the Secre- 
tary of State, to have the letter communicated to Congress, toge- 
ther with his remarks, explanatory of its contents. This course 
appeared to me perfectly fajr ; and in supporting the motion, which 
I had submitted for the purpose, I assigned, among other reasons, 
the palpable unfairness of making the letter public, while the an- 
swer was suppressed. Several members, with whom 1 conversed, 
concurred with me entirely in the propriety of having both commu- 
nicated together. It seems to me, therefore, very singular, that 
any censure could be attached to Mr. Adams, even had he, as al- 
leged, requested or " procured" the call. I do, however, explicitly 
declare, that neither Mr. Mams, nor any other person, either re- 
quested or '■'■procured''^ me to move the call, or to do any thing in re- 
lation to it. 

I regretted the absence of Mr. Russell, and did not know of his 
intention to depart from Washington, until he was actually gone ; 
had he been present, however, it did not occur to me, that he could 
have any objection to the resolution, and it would not have pre- 
vented the support I gave it. 

Mr. Floyd's remarks, in opposition to the resolution, appear to 
me more accurately stated in his letter, than as reported in the In- 
telligencer ; but the addition which he has supplied, seems not ma- 
terial, in my view, for his " justification." 

Permit me to add, that while I regret extremely the unfortunate 
occasion, I nevertheless rejoice in perceiving that it has produced 
a full development of the import and bearings of several important 
points, which required only to be understood, to allay the jealousies 
so natural, but I trust so unfounded, between the different sections 
of our country, Your's respectfully; 

T. FULLER, 



248 

ir. From the National Intelligencer of iilst Avgust, 18"2^J. 

To the Editors of the National Intelligencer. 

In the Richmond Enquirer of the 27th August, 1822, there is 
published a letter from Mr. Floyd to the editors of that paper, in 
which he says, that in my Rejoinder to Mr. Russell, I boldly and 
confidently reiterate, that Mr. Russell procured HIM, to subserve 
his purposes, and make the call in the House, which he did make ; 
which assertion he unequivocally pronounces to be utterly desti- 
tute of that verity which ought always to characterize assertions 
made to the public. 

Whoever has read the Rejoinder, thus referred to, must have 
seen that the name of Mr. Floyd is not so much as mentioned in it. 
I have invariably spoken in it of the call of the Eovse of Represent- 
atives, and have mentioned the mover of the Resolution, only to 
say, that when Mr. Russell left the City, on the fifth of May, I pre- 
sumed he knew that the call for the letter would not be renewed 
by him. I have said that the call of the House of the 19th of 
April, was made at Mr. Russell's ii^stance or suggestion, and that it 
w^as procured by him. My vouchers for this assertion, are the 
declarations of Mr. Russell himself to Mr. Brent and Mr. Bailey, 
as attested in their statements — from the latter of which it appears 
how the call for Mr. Russell's letter was procured by him, namely, 
that Mr Floyd, before offering the resolution, asked him for a copy 
of the letter, which Mr. Russell declined giving, telling Mr. Floyd 
that if he wished a copy, he must move a call for it. Mr. Floyd 
has not denied this to be ftct. If he did deny it, the question would 
be upon the verity of Mr. Russell's assertion, and not of mine. 
With the verity which ought always to characterize assertions 
made to the public, I am as deeply impressed as I could be by the 
precept of Mr. Floyd, or by his example. 

JOHN qUINCY ADAMS. 

Washington, 30th August, 1822, 



V. Further Remarks iipon Mr. Floyd''s Letter to the Editors of the 
Richmond Enquirer. 

The impartial editors of the Richmond Enquirer, in republish- 
ing this letter of mine to the editors of the National Intelligencer, 
repelling the charge of Mr. Floyd, annexed to it a note of their 
own, styling the distinction pointed out in my letter between the 
motion of Mr. Floyd, and the call of the House of Representatives 
which resulted from it, « nice distinction. 

The distinction was this : Mr. Floyd had accused me of having, 
*' regardless of feehngs or opinions, boldly and confidently reiterat- 
" ed, in my Rejoinder, that Mr. Russell had procured him, (Mr. 
" Floyd,) to subserve his, (Mr. Russell's,) purposes, and make the- 
" call in the House which he did make." And upon this accusa- 



249 

tion, Mr. Floyd had taken ground to charge me with injustice u. 
him, and with having asserted of him that which was not true. 

If 1 had asserted, personally, of Mr. Floyd, that which he im- 
puted to me, he would have had reason to take offence at the as 
scrtion, and to deny its truth : but the assertion that the call of the 
House, adopted upon his motion, was procured by Mr. Russell, 
neither implied that Mr. Floyd had made himself subservient to 
Mr. Russell's purposes, nor any thing at which Mr. Floyd could 
justly take offence. The fact which I did assert, namely, that the 
call for Mr. Russell's letter had been made at his own suggestion, 
is not denied by Mr. Floyd, and is true. It was only by imputing 
to me an assertion that I had not made, that Mr. Floj'd could make 
himself ground to stand upon, in charging injustice to him, and un- 
truth upon my assertion. 

My assertion was no more saying that Mr. Russell procured Mr. 
Floyd to subserve his purposes, than that he procured the House 
of Representatives to subserve his purposes. 

In stating the simple fact, that the call of lOth April, 1822, was 
moved for at the suggestion of Mr. Russell, I neither meant, nor 
thought, that Mr. Floyd acted in subserviency to the purposes of Mr. 
Russell. I knew he had purposes of his own. That so far as they 
were applicable to me, those purposes concurred well with tliose 
of Mr. Russell, I did believe ; but to Mr. Floyd, all that I meant to 
impute, was, the wish to obtain the letter, and that the mode of ob- 
taming it had been suggested to him by Mr. Russell. 

Mr. Floyd, sensitive as he is to the idea of a bare intimation that 
a call of the House, moved for by him, had been procured bv Mr. 
Russell, has, nevertheless, not scrupled to say, in direct term's, that 
I procured Mr. Fuller to make the call from which he, Mr. Floyd, 
had desisted. I do not suppose that by this assertion Mr. Floyd 
intended any thing offensive to Mr. Fuller ; and if he did not, still 
less reason could he have for taking offence at my asserting, in 
terms not even personal to himself, nor using his name, that a call 
moved for by him had been procured by Mr. Russell. He had less 
cause to use the term, as applicable to Mr. Fuller, than I had, as 
applicable tohim. His call of 19th April, had been directly sug- 
gested to him by Mr. Russell. After the President's message to 
the House, of 4th May, declining the communication of the papers, 
unless they should renew their call, it was unknown to me for two 
days, whether Mr. Floyd would move a renewal of the call, or not. 
The public curiosity was very highly excited, and many of the 
members of both Houses of Congress, whom I casually saw in the 
interval, spoke to me on the subject. I did not conceal from any 
one of them, my wish that the papers should be communicated to 
the House ; but I did not ask any one of them to renew the call. 
I gave them all to understand, that if Mr. Floyd should renew the 
call, I hoped it would by no one be resisted, on any consideration 
of regard for me. Every one of them must have known, that if 
Mr. Floyd did not renew the call, I should be glad if it were re- 



250 

neweci l>j any other member : but I ncitlu:r oskcd Mr. Fuller nor 
any other member to renew it. I (Jid not, therefore, procure Mr. 
Fuller, to renew the call and if I can be ?aid to have procured the 
call, moved for by him, it was only by the expression of a general 
wish to him, as to many others, that the papers should be commu- 
nicated to the House ; a wish which had already been made known 
to the House by the message of the President. 

Nothing offensive to Mr. Floyd was intended by me in my Rc" 
joinder, nor, if he had been governed by his own maxim, could he 
have seen any thing offensive to him in it. But there is one thing, 
at least, in which there is, between Mr. Russell and Mr. Floyd, a 
communitif of purpose : that of assuming an attitude o^ defence, for 
the purpose of making an attack upon me. 

Mr, Floyd, in the publication here alluded to, has indulged him- 
self in many reflections and insinuations against me, which, having 
no relation to the subject of this controversy, I deem it most respect- 
ful to the public to pass over in silence. I bear no enmit}' to Mr. 
Floyd. Having no personal acquaintance with him, I can have no 
feelings towards him, other than those excited by his conduct as a 
public man, which is open to my observation as mine is open to 
his. 

There had been a time when, upon a critical occasion, in which 
my public conduct was not a little involved, Mr. Floj'd, still more 
unknown to me than at present, had in the House of Represent- 
atives taken a part which had giv^en him claims to my esteem — per- 
haps to my gratitude. His copduct and opinions then, were doubt- 
Jess actuated exclusively by public motives, and without reference 
at all to me— yet I was grateful to him for his support of a cause 
^vhich it had also been my duty to defend : the cause of a herOj 
jjpon whose public services was invoked the pubhc censure of his 
country.* 

Whatever v/ere his motives for moving the first call for the 
Ghent papers, or the second, for Mr. Russell's letter, as he thereby 
only exercised his right as a representative of the people, I could 
take no exception to it. There were no ties of private friendship 
between Mr. Floyd and me, which made his case different from 
that of Mr. Russell ; and if he had received his impression of the 
transactions at Ghent from representations such as those of Mr. 
Russell's letter, he might, without impropriety, move a call for the 
papers, for the purpose of bringing the whole subject before Con- 
gress, and the nation, and of exposing what he might deem to be my 
misconduct in the transaction, even though it should have no bear- 
ing upon his bill for the occupation of Columbia river. 

By his publication in the Richmond Enquirer, he seems desirous 
of being understood to disclaim any other purpose in moving the 

* See the Debate in the House of Representatives, on the Seminole War, 
February, 1819, Mr. Floyd's Speech. 



251 

calls, Iban to obtain information for the support and elucidatioft of 
that bill — yet his disclaimer is not explicit. 

At the preceding session of Congress, as Chairman of a Commit- 
tee of the House of Representatives, he had made a report recom- 
mending the establishment of a territory at the mouth of Columbia 
river. He now states, that at that time, in conversation at his 
lodgings with some of his friends, upon the subject of that report, 
and upon the value of the fur trade of our western waters, the 
wealth to be derived from that trade in the Canton market, and 
the practicability of supplying the valley of the Mississippi with the 
manufactures of that route, one gentleman observed, that the Mis- 
sissippi had been discussed at Ghent, and from the characters of the 
gentlemen engaged in it, there was a strong probability that if Mr. 
Floyd had that correspondence, he would obtain something which 
might be useful to him. Upon which he immediately determined to 
make the call, as a proper mode of getting the papers, but after- 
wards determined to postpone the call until the next session. 

Mr, Floyd has not informed the public, who it was that made the 
suggestion to him, upon which he determined to call for the Ghent 
correspondence ; but it was a person who knew that the Mississip- 
pi had been discussed at Ghent, and who, by suggesting this idea to 
Mr. Floyd, sufficiently manifested the disposition that the corres- 
pondence containing the discussion of the Mississippi at Ghent» 
should be brought before the public. 

Mr. Floyd's projected bill might be an occasion to obtain this ob- 
ject, but where so much was known about the discussion of the Mis- 
sissippi at Ghent, other purposes, besides the occupation of Co- 
lumbia river, the fur trade, or the Canton market, were doubtless 
contemplated in stimulating the call for the correspondence. I do 
not mean to complain of such motives, if they were partaken by 
Mr. Floyd : but while influenced by them, he cannot claim the 
privilege of impartiality, with reference to this inquiry, nor should 
he have appealed to the public, as if he had been injured by me, 
for merely stating the fact, that the call of the House for Mr. Rus- 
sell's letter, had been moved for at the suggestion of Mr, Russell 
himself. By Mr. Floyd's own showing, his first call for the Ghent 
papers, had been suggested to him. He does not deny that the call 
for Mr. Russell's letter was suggested to him, and he might have 
added, even, that his coming forward in the Richmond Enquirer, 
in aid of Mr. Russell, had been suggested to him by the editors of 
that paper.* 

The motives now alleged by Mr. Floyd for his call of 17th Ja- 
nuary, 1822, could not lead him to the suspicion, that there would 
be any reluctance in the Executive to furnish all the documents 
that could be useful to him for his Columbia river bill ; nor does it 
indeed appear, that on the 16fh of January, 1822, when he moyed 
the resolution, he suspected, or had reason to suspect, there would 
he any difficulty in obtaining all the papers upon the call. 

* See the Richmond Enquirer of 2d AwgW't, 1822, 



252 

The case seems Lo have been different on the next day. Mr. 
Floyd then proposed to strike out from his resolution, the exception 
of papers, which, in the opinion of the President, it might be im- 
proper to disclose ; and to the demand for the correspondence, had 
added that for the protocol. 

The following observations of Mr. Floyd in this day's debate, 
[17th January, 1822,] explaining his reasons for wishing for the 
whole correspondence, without excepting even such parts of it as in 
the President's opinion it might be improper to disclose, are par- 
ticularly remarkable. He observed "• that the bill which he had 
" this day reported to the House, contemplated a considerable 
" change in the intercourse with the Indian tribes, in the West ; and 
"it appeared by the report of the Secretary of War, made yester- 
*"' day, that a great inJJnence zeas exercised over those tribes by our 
•• European neighbours in that quarter. The cori'espondence be- 
" tvveeu the commissioners at Ghent, embraced this subject among 
^' others, and he thought it was desirable thai the House should be 
"in possession of the whole of it." 

Mr. Floyd, in his recent publication, says that when the papers 
n-ere communicated to the House, in answer to this call, on exam- 
ining them, lie could not find any thing he wanted ; but that he ex- 
pected to find it in the letter of Mr. Russell, promised in his sepa- 
rate despatch of 25th December, 1814. He disclaims any inten- 
tion, however, of calling for a private letter, and says, that if by 
any proper act he could have prevented this affair, he would have 
done so. Whether he found, in Mr. Russell's letter, when it was 
♦■oramunicated, any thing that he wanted, he has not said. There 
was much touching the value of the Mississippi river, and much 
about the influence exercised over those Indian tribes, by our Eu- 
ropean neighbours in that quarter : the bearing of it, or of wny part 
of it, upon Mr. Floyd's bill for the occupation of Columbia river, is 
not so perceptible as its bearing upon the object which he now 
seems to disclaim. If he means to be understood to say, that he had 
7(0 other motive in calling for that letter than those that he has as- 
signed in his recent publication, 1 should only regret that this paper, 
when obtained, was so little suited to answer his expectations, or to 
give him the information of which he was in pursuit. 

That he had other objects in view, it was certainly very natural 
to believe, upon observing the earnestness with which he pressed for 
the whole Ghent correspondence, without excepting such part as 
the President might think it improper to disclose ; and upon com- 
paring his observations in the debate of 17th January, with the 
contents of Mr. Russell's letter. 

His resolution of 1 9th April, called on the President (if not in- 
jurious to the public good) for any letter or communication, which 
may have been received, from Jonathan Russell, after the signature 
of the treaty of Ghent, and written in conformity to the indications 
contained in his letter of 25th December, 1814. Although in this 
call, there is neither qualification of the character of the letter or 



253 

communication, whether public or private, of the time when, nor of 
the person by whom, it might have been received, and by its word- 
ing it seemed adapted to obtain precisely such a paper as Mr. Rus- 
sell did produce, yet, after vphat has been said by Mr. Floyd, I 
must infer, that in making this call of 19th April, he did not know 
that Mr. Russell's letter from Paris was a private letter But Mr. 
Russell himself did know it, and had, nevertheless, repeatedly ex- 
pressed the wish, that it might be communicated to the House un- 
der the (irst call of 17th January. In the interval between the 
first and second call, he had sent for his own original of it to Men- 
don — had received it, and was immediately afterwards prepared 
with his duplicate, not marked private, but delivered by himself at 
the Department of State as a public letter. 

Of Mr. Floyd's anxious wish first, that the whole correspond- 
ence, and secondly, that this letter of Mr. Russell should come 
before Congress, there can assuredly be no question. With re- 
gard to the correspondence, my wish to gratify him was the more 
earnest, from the hope, that whatever might be his motive for 
the call, he would be convinced there was none in the executive 
for concealment. As to Mr. Russell's letter, before I knew its 
contents, I wished it might be communicated, for the gratification 
both of Mr. Russell and Mr. Floyd; and after I knew them, for my 
own vindication and that of my colleagues of the majority at Ghent, 
against them. 

Mr. Floyd, when he says that I procured Mr. Fuller to make 
the call (of 7th May,) which he, Mr. Floyd, had desisted from, 
adds, that it seems this was so desirable to me as a mean of getting 
into the newspapers 

A biographer of Mr. Fox, charged the physicians who attended 
him in his last illness, with having hastened his death by adminis- 
tering foxglove The physicians answered by declaring that they 
had administered no foxglove to him ; upon which the biographer 
turned upon them with a charge of having caused the patient's 
death by omitting to administer foxglove, a remedy known to be 
suited for his disease. Thus Mr. Floyd, after moving a call for 
the Ghent papers, without excepting even such as the President 
might think it improper to disclose ; after moving a second call for 
any letter or communication, unless injurious to the public good, 
which may have been received from Mr. Russell, on the subject, 
after manifesting the utmost impatience for the papers, and not 
sparing the excitement of suspicions that they would be garbled 
or suppressed ; now turns upon me for concurring with him in the 
wish, that they might all be produced, and imputes it all to a desire 
on my part of getting into the newspapers. 

It was not into the newspapers, but before the House of Repre- 
sentatives, that the motion of Mr. Fuller was adapted to bring me; 
and it was at the call of Mr. Floyd, with the concurring will and 

3e 



254 

agency of Mr. Russell, that I had been summoned there. Undev 
their auspices, I should have been introduced like a convict of the 
inquisition, with my sentence upon ray breast My own wish was 
to appear with the accusation against me, and my defence for the 
House to judge upon both. If Mr. Floyd had then reason to de» 
sist from his call, I had the more reason for wishing it renewed. 

It was Mr. Russell, too, who chose to go into the newspapers, 
first by publishing his triplicate in Philadelphia, and then his reply, 
in the Boston Statesman. It was with extreme reluctance that I 
followed him into that field, and I took the earliest opportunity of 
withdrawing from it, until called there again by Mr. Floyd. 

If Mr. Jefferson himself, the patriarch of the revolution, the 
immortal author of the Declaration of Independence, in the re- 
tirement of private life, in the last stage of his illustrious career, 
surrounded by the gratitude and veneration of his country, justly 
thought it not unworthy of himself, to meet twice in the newspa- 
pers, the accusations of a nameless " Native of Virginia," because 
they struck at his honour, I hope it will be imputed to no thirst for 
newspaper contention, if I, who in comparison with him am but of 
yesterday, but holding a public trust, for which dishonour is dis- 
qualification, have met in the public journals, the concurring and 
persevering, though variously pretexted and modified, attacks of a 
native of Massachusetts and a native of Virginia, both supported by 
their names, both acts of men, honoured themselves with public 
confidence, and both tending, if not intended, to rob me of that 
good name, without which to me public trust would be a reproach 
and existence itself but a burthen. 

The perusal of Mr. Russell's duplicate disclosed to me the mys- 
tery of ruin which had been brewing against me, from the very day 
after the signature of the treaty of Ghent. It was by representa- 
tions like those of that letter, that the minds of my fellow citizens in 
the West, had for a succession of years been abused and ulcerated 
against me. That letter, indeed, inculpated the whole majority of 
the mission at Ghent, but subsidiary slander had performed its part 
of pointing all the guilt, and fastening all the responsibility of the 
crime upon me. It was I who had made the proposal, and Mr. 
Bayard, after assenting to it, had repented. Such were the tales 
which had been for years in circulation, and which ceased not to 
be told, until after the publication of Mr, Russell's letters and mj' 
remarks. Imputations of motives of the deepest infamy, were 
connected with these aspersions, conveyed in dark insinuations, 
and vouched for upon pretended ambiguous givings out of the 
dead.* Several of the public journals from the first call of Mr. 
Floyd for the Ghent papers, had caught enough of the oracular and 
prophetic spirit, to foresee that it would result in my irredeemable 
disgrace. The House of Representatives had called for Mr. Rus- 

* See the Aurora, daily, for the last week in May, and the Richmond En- 
quirer of 4th June, 1822. 



255 

acll's letter : Mr. Russell himself had furnished it, to be reported 
in answer to the call. Curiosity had been potioned into .eager- 
ness for a sight of it, and of that eagerness Mr. Floyd had ex- 
hibited no unintelligible share. If his only object was to obtain 
information useful to him, with reference to the Columbia River Bill^ 
the indexes to his mind, in the debate of the 17th of January, 
1822, had mistaken their direction. If he had another object, it 
would have been candid to avow it then, and not to disavow it now. 

Mr. Floyd says he will take no part in the controversy between 
Mr. Russell and me. I should have had more reason to thank Mr. 
Floyd for this profession of impartiality, if it comported better 
either with the general tenor, or the particular import, of the pub- 
lication in which it is contained. Mr. Floyd must not be allowed 
at once to claim the rights of neutrality and to practise acts of en- 
mity. The whole of his publication is full of hostility to me, as 
inveterate as it was unprovoked : a neutral flag and a raking broad- 
side are but indifferent vouchers for each other. Mr. Floyd now 
comes forward in this controversy substantially as an auxiliary to 
Mr. Russell, and as a pretext for it , he charges me with an asser- 
tion which I never made, that he may take it as personally offen- 
sive to himself, and attack me under a colour of self-defence. I 
never gave cause of offence to Mr. Floyd, and if in the Ghent 
papers for his profound researches touching the value of the Mis- 
sissippi river, or the discussion of the Mississippi at Ghent, he 
could not find any thing he wanted, the fault was not mine. It is 
usual to look for information to places where it is likely to he found. 
If an astronomer should point his telescope to the moon in search 
of spots on the face of the sun, it would not be surprising if he 
could not find any thing that he wanted. 

Mr. Floyd declares that he will not either in public or in private 
refrain from commenting upon the public conduct and opinions of 
any public man, who may be thought or may think himself entitled 
to office. He adds that his opposition has always been political 
and directed by the ideas he entertains of the power which gentle- 
men may think themselves entitled to exercise, under the constitution 
of the United States. If, by these general expressions, Mr. Floyd 
m^ans any special reference to me, I have not the slightest objec- 
tion to his commenting upon my public conduct and opinions, whe- 
ther in public or private, while he will confine himself to that ex- 
act verity, of which he has so sound a theoretic conception. 1 am 
perfectly willing even that he should take his Columbia River Bill 
as the text for a comment upon the discussion of the Mi'^sissippi at 
Ghent. But if he comments upon the power which / may think 
myself entitled to exercise under the constitution of the United 
States, from the ideas which he entertains of it, I shall only ask 
the hearers to examine well the coincidence between my thoughts 
and his ideas on the same subject. He says he looks upon the 
constitution of the United States as containing expressed a.rant? of 
power, and cannot approve any opposite opinion. I hold no oppo- 



256 

site opinion, and it in his comments, public or private, Mr. Floyd 
should impute to me that I do, 1 can only hope that his hearers will 
judge of my opinions as they are, and not according to the ideas of 
them entertained by Mr. Floyd. 

Mr. Floyd intimates that he shall hold me responsible not only 
for every thing that I say of him, but for ever}' thing that may be 
said of him by persons in official stations under me. To the first 
part of this determination I have no objection ; but he will excuse 
me from holding myself responsible to him for what I do not say of 
him, or for what may be said of him by any other man. The offi- 
cial dependence of the subordinate officers of government, neither 
in law, justice, or equity disqualifies them for the exercise of the 
rights, nor absolves them from the responsibility of giving testimo- 
ny ; and the credit due to that testimony, depends not upon official 
station, but upon individual character. I called upon Mr. Brent 
and Mr. Bailey for statements of facts, material in the controversy 
between Mr. Russell and me, and known only to them. They have 
long held in the Department, offices of great trust and confidence, of- 
fices for which no other than men of perfect integrity and unsullied 
reputation could be qualified. They are not personally known to 
Mr. Floyd ; and I do him the justice to believe, that if they had 
been, he would have spared some of his refl.^ctions. But they are 
extensively known to others, and wherever known, are respected, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 



DAVIS k. FORCE, PRINT. 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

SNTRODUCTION. 3 

Debate in House of Representatives of the U. S. 17th January, 1822. 

From the National Intelligencer, ••.•». 4 

CORRESPONDENCE WHICH LED TO THE TREATY OF GHENT.- 

Extracts from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the Unit- 
ed States, of the l6th and 17th January, 1822, 13 

Mr. Floyd's Resolutions calling for the Ghent Correspondence,.. 13 

Message from the President of the United States to the House, transmit- 
ting the Correspondence, 2lFeby. 1822, 13 

Report of the Correspondence to the President of the United States by 

the Secretary of State, 13 

American Note No. 6, in answer to British Note No. 6,. .10 Nov. 181*, 14 

Project of a Treaty sent with the above Note, 17 

British Note, No. 7, 26 Nov'r 1814, 24 

Project of a Treaty as returned with this Note, , 26 

American Note No. 7, in reply to British Note, No. 7,. ..30 Nov'r 1814, 42 

Extract of a Law of the United States, passed July 6, 1812, , 43 

British Note, No. 8, 30 Nov'r 1814, 43 

Protocol of Conference, 1 Dec'r 1814, 44 

Protocol of Conference, 10 Dec'r l8l4, 46 

Protocol of Conference, 12 Dec'r 1814, 47 

American Note, No. 8, 14 Dec'r 1814, 48 

British Note, No. 10, in answer to American Note, No. 8, 22 Dec'r 1814, 50 

Protocol of Conference,.... r 23 Dec'r 1814, 51 

American Plenipotentiaries to the Secretary of State of the 

United States, , 25 Dec'r 1814, 55 

Mr. Russell to the Secretary of State — Extract, 25 Dec'r 18l4, 56 

Mr. Gallatin to the Secretary of State, 25 Dec'r 1B14, 57 

THE DITFLICATE LETTERS AND THE REAIAKS. 

Extracts from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the Unit- 
ed States, 18 and 19 April, 1822, 59 

Mr. Floyd's Resolution calling for Mr. Russell's Letter, 59 

Message from the President of the U. States to the House, 4 May, 1822, 59 
Report of the Duplicate to the President of the United 

States by the Secretary of State, 3 May, 1822, 60 

Extracts from the Journal of the House of Representatives 

of the United States, 6 and 7 May, 1822, 61 

Mr. Fuller's Resolution. 

Extract from the National Intelligencer of 13th June, 1822, 61 



CONTENTS* 

Page. 
DebateonMr. Fuller's Resolution, •••••.•••..•#•... 61 

Message firom the President of the United States to the House, transmit- 
ting the Duplicate Letters and the Remarks of the Secretary of 

State, 7 May, 1822, 63 

Report to the President of the United States of the Secretary of State's 

Remarks, 63 

Mr. Russell's Private Letter to the Sec'y of State. Paris, ll Feb'y 1815, 64 
Duplicate, left 22 April, 1822, by Mr. Russell at the Department of State, 65 
Remarks thereon, by John Quincy Adams 3 May, 1822, 88 

THE TRIPLICATE. 

Extracts from the National Gazette. Philadelphia, lO and 25 May, 

1822, 114,118 

Mr. Russell's Reply to Mr. Adams. From the Boston Statesman, 27 

June 1822, 119 

Mr. Adams's Rejoinder. From the National Intelligencer of 17th July 

and 7th August, 1822, 138, 158 

Mr. Brent's Statement,. •• 155 

Mr. Bailey's Statement, l56 

TFRTHER STRICTURES 0J» MR. RUSSELl'S REPRESENTATIONS AND 
STATEMENTS. 

I. Navigation of the Mississippi — worthless to the British, 163 

II. Right to the Fishing Liberties — Effect of War upon Treaties — Pecu- 

liar character of the Treaty of 1783,.. 182 

m. Fishing Liberties— Their Value, 202 

Mr. Lloyd's Letter, , 210 

Newfoundland Memorial. From Niles's Register, of 11 June, l8l4, 221 
Extracts from Colquhoun's Treatise on the Wealth, Power, and 

Resources of the British Empire, , 223 

Conclusion, 229 

APPENDIX. 

I. Western Commentaries, 232 

Extract from the Argus of Western America. Frankfort, Kentucky, 

18 July, 1822, 233 

Remarks on the above Extract, 234 

II. Mr. Floyd's Letter— Richmond Enquirer of 27 August, 1822, 243 

in. Mr. Fuller's Letter — Boston Patriot of 4 September, 1822, 247 

!V. Mr. Adams's Answer to Mr. Floyd's Letter — National Intelligencer 

of 31 August, 1822, 248 

^. Further Remarks upon Mr. Floyd's Letter, 248 



ERRATA. 

Page 15, line 5, for "aready," read "already.'' 

18, last line but one, for " boundaries," read " countries.'' 
20, line 24, for " articte," read '• article." 

24, 25, for " ratification," read " ratifications.'' 

25, 15, for "nogotiations," read "negotiations." 

46, 3, from the bottom, for "plenipotiaries," read "pleni- 
potentiaries." 

71, 20, towards the end, strike out "the." 

71, 29, for "dependant," read "dependent." 

77, 6, between "our'' and "Instructions,'' insert "other." 

77, 39, for " were," read " was." 

78, 32, at the beginning of the line, add "from." 

86, last line but one, for " grant to," read "gram or.'' 

87, line 37, before "negotiation," add "of the." 
108, 31, for "then," read "than." 

117, 24, for "only," read "ably." 

121, 3 from the bottom, for " rating," read "eating.'" 

I2l, 2 from the bottom, for "oity." read " rity." 

130, 5, for "conferenee, read "conference" 

133, lO from the bottom, for "proprienty," read "propriety." 

147, 21, at the beginning, strike out "in.'' 

l52, 12, for "orignal," read "original." 

161, 16, for " them," read " it." 

200, 6, for "9th," read "8th." 

221, 12, for " 24th," read "25th." 

227, 4, after "opinion,'' insprf " iipon " 



IB 'Of 



v>^ 



\ 7 






'^ VI 8, "^'^ 






"bo^ 







•' o I 









c: 



■0" ,- 












-^z- 







-^ v^^ 












•O^ 






c. , * 



% 






Hi ^ 




>^ ;- 






,^^ '^^^.. 
' 



v' 

^ o. 



* 8 I 



0"^ 



. 2 



^ 

^^<^.. 



xO°^. 






"-C, 



* N ^ '^'^^ "^ 



J 










